CIHM
Microfiche
Series
(Monographis)

ICMH

Collection de
microfiches
(monographies)

Canadian Instituta for Historical Microraproductiont / Institut Canadian da microraproductiont hlitoriqitaa

1995

Technical «nd Biblioflrsphic Notn / Notts Mchniqiin tt bibltoflr^hiqiMt

Tht Instilutt has atiampttd to obttin the btsi original
copy availabia for filming. Faaturas of thii copy which
may ba bibliographicaliy unique, which may altar any
of tht imagas in tha reproductiim, or which may
significantlv changa tha inual mattiod of filming, ara
chackad balow.

□ Colourad covart/
Couvtrtura da coulaur

D
D
D
D
D
D
D
0

Covars damagad/
Couvarfura andommagia

Covari rastorad and/or laminatad/
Couvartura rastauria at/ou pallieulia

Cover title miisins/

Le titre da couverture mmque

Coloured mapi/

Certts giographiques an oouleur

Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or btaelt)/
Encre de couleur 0.e. autre que Meue ou noire)

Coloured platet wid/or illustrations/
Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur

Bound with other mattrial/
Relie avac d'autrcs documents

Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion
along interior margin/

La reliure sarree peut ceuser da I'ombra ou de la
distorsion le long da la marge interieure

Blank leaves added during restoration may appear
within the text. Wheiwver possible, these have
been omitted from filming/
II se peut que certainas pages blanches aiouttei
Ion d'urw restauration apparaissant dans le texte,
mais, lonquc cala itait possible, ces pages n'ont
pas atA f ilmtes.

fyl Additional comments:/ Various paging*.

I 1 Commenuiras supplementaires:

D

L'Inttitut a micraf ilmA It nwilU ur aMtinplair* qu'il
lui • M possibl* da m procurar. Las Mtailt da cat
aiaiiiptaira qui unt paul4tra uniquM du point da >ua
biMJographiqut, qui p«u>ant modifin una ioiagt
raproduila. ou qui pau«ant axifar una modification
dam I* mMMda nonnala da f ilmata wnt indiquii

0 Colourad pafat/
PHat da coulaur

□ Pagts damaatd/
PiQas andOfflflMflaas

□ Pa«t< raitorad and/or laminatad/
Patn r^ttaurin at/ou pallicuMaa

I yl Pagai discolourad. minad or toMd/
L — I Paiai dicoloriat, tachatiat ou piquaai

□ Pagas datactMd/
PagatdtocMM

0Sho<«hrou|li/
Trantparanca

□ Quality of print >ariat/
Qualiti in^gala da I'ifflpratsion

□ Continuous pagination/
Pagination continue

Qlncludas indtxiat)/
Comprand un (das) indax

Titia on haadtr ukan f rom: /
La titra da l'an-t*ta Proliant:

□ TitIa paga of issue/
Paga da titra da la livraison

r~~] Caption of issue/

D

Titra da dipart da la liwaison

Masthead/

Ganerique (periodiques) de la li>raison

This item is filmed at the reduction retio checked below/

Ce document est films au teux da reduction indiqui ci-dassous.

'OX UX 18X

22X

J

2ax

32X

Th« copy fllmad har* ha» bMO raproducad thank*
to tha ganaroaity of:

National Library of Canada

L'anamplaira film* fut raproduit grica t la
g*ntroait* da:

Blbliothiqua natlonala du Canada

Tha imagaa appaaring hara ara tha baat quality
posaibia eoniidaring tha condition and lagibility
of tha original copy and in kaaping with tha
filming eenuact apacificationa.

Original eopia* in printad papar covara ara fllmad
baginning with ttM front eovar and anding on
tha la«t paga with a printad or illuatratod impraa-
«ion. or tha bach eovar whan appropriata. All
othar original copiaa ara filmad baginning on tha
first paga with a printad or illuitratad impraa-
■ion. and anding on tha last paga with a printad
or illuatratad impraaaion.

Tha laat racordad frama on aach microflcha
■hall conuin tha lymbol -^ I moaning "CON-
TINUED"), or tha lymbol V (moaning "END"),
whiehavar appiiaa.

Mapa. plata*. chart*, ate. may ba filmad at
diffarant raduction ratio*. Thoaa too larga to bo
antiraly includad in ona axpoaura ara filmad
baginning in tha uppar laft hand cornar. laft to
right and top to bonom. a* many frama* a*
raquirad. Tha following diagram* illuitrata tha
malhod:

La* imaga* (uivanta* ont M raproduita* avac I*
plu* grand (Oin. compta lanu da la condition ai
da la nattatt da I'axamplaira film*, at an
conformil* avac la* condition* du eontrat da
fllmaga.

Laa axamplairaa origlnaux dont la couvanura an
papiar aat imprimOa *ont film** an commancani
par la pramiar plat at an tarminant *oit par la
darniAra paga qui eomporta una amprainta
d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration. *ait par la lacond
plat, talon la caa. Tous las autra* axamplaira*
originaux *ant fllmte an commancant par la
pramlAra paga qui eomporta una amprainta
d'impraaaion ou d'illuatration at an tarminant par
la darnitra paga qui eomporta una talla
amprainta.

Un daa aymbolai *uivant* tpparaitra *ur la
darnlAra imaga da chaqua microflcha. salon la
ea*: la aymbola ^ signifia "A SUIVRE '. la
symbola V signifia "FIN ".

Laa cartaa. planchas. ubiaaux. ate. pauvant itra
tilmto i da* Uux da reduction diffirant*.
Lorsqua la documant ast trop grand pour itra
raproduit an un saul elich*. il ast film* * partir
da I'angia supAriaur gaucha. da gaucha * droita.
at da haut an bas. an pranant la nombra
d'imagaa nOcassaira. Las diagrammas suivants
illuatrant la mithodo.

1 2 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

MKaOCOfY HiSOlUri .,>■ tist chmt
(ANSI gnd ISO TEST CHAUT No. 2)

1.0 ifi^ 1^

I U£ 12.0

I.I

II

1.8

1125 i 1.4

1.6

A ijPPUEp IIVHGE

m

SWEE'
THE

ON THE

INTERPEETATION OF STATUTES

IIV THK LATK

Sir PETKK BENSON MAXWELL

A»0 LtaAL At.|llSI,,rKAT(ili

I* KdYl-l, t«83-4.

" "•"'KnlM legcB intcrpreUiidc

"unt, qu« »"luiiU.c»ranicon*rf»Pl,,r."
^ij. 1, 3, 18

SIXTH EDITION

BY

W. AVYATT-PAINE

CLMiK Ajfu tlXDSKLL ON TOKTS."

LONDON ■

SWEET AND MAXWELL. LTD., 3, CHANCERY LANE

law piibliflbcts

_„ TonoNTO ■

THE CARSWELL CO.. LTD.. 19, „UNCAN STREET
1920

2517! 3

lat Edition .... 1S75

and 1883

3rd „ By A. B. Kemii: 1806
4th „ „ J. A. Theobald 1905

5th „ „ P. Stbocd 1912

HtEFACE TO THE SIXTH

KDITION.

addition of mod«n caZ X^'"^ "''"^ the mere
t >e Statutes themselves shoilA"' ''''^'^*^"' "'at
order that the precise letfl?c^ ''•^ considered in

i\or thou^t very many of H^«?i J"^ ascertained.
! ^cussed by the'^Iearned Ltfe. f *' "^ ?"liament
"ito temporaryorcomDW« 1- ^'*'''' "'^er fallen
Puoged from ^he St^L £00^'.? ' ^""" ''««" «'
Interpretation, slowly cmtam^lii^ Pnnciples of
of eminent jurists, still co'S^,f ^l generations
which the construction «nT'"*® *he canons by
ment are to be determined ,nd'f' °' '^'*' °' ^'^'^^-
o the inheritance beSieatheA ^J!^ "° "^^^^ Part
thegreat lawyers ofZZst *^'' g^'^eratiou^y

o-f d ?; S1,:taarst^,''^*°; ^- -dea.
^"-P-^enceisnecesii,y^rLSLffi-o;

ir

rnnFAOK.

fltu ; the neodH of racli geuoratiou aro not thoue
of that which either rrtccdes or follows it. Con-
sequently in preparing a new edition of a work like
Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes two
essentials seemed necessary — first, to retain the
style of the or''giual author, and second, to make
the work of ryal utility to the practitioner of the
present day.

How far the Editor has succeeded in combining
these desiderata it is for the reader of the present
edition to determine, although no trouble has been
spared in the attempt to make the book worthy of
its high repntatiou. Valuable assistance in the
preparation of the ludex, Table of Statutes and
Table of Cases has been given to the Editor by his
friend, Mr. J. E. Maellraith, of the Middle Temple
and Northern Circuit, barrister-at-law.

\V. WYATT-PAINE.

Inner Templk,
192U.

CONTENTS.

Tabik ok Oases
Tahlb .)K Stati-tes

olv

CHAPTEB I.

P«EtI.MI.VABY SL'HVEV
NBCT. I. Introiliiotory

n. Literal conatrgction '■'•••

CHAPTEB IJ.

T«EATMrvT OK OE.VK«A. WOBDg

CHAPTER III.

RESTRICTION TO THP «»„„

TO THE SPECIFIC OBJECT ,;, viElV.

1

8
86
H

72

95
128

"•'"^' l.V VIEW.

t-onsequencra to be eo„.,i,lero>l_Pr,

'"y alteration of the la^l ?'"'"""' """'""

oaheAet-Me^rireTiSa^-'^^r'^^:"--

148

CHAPTER IV.

EXTBNRION OP TOR LKTTKB TO I'RKVRNT RNAHION
OR A HUSK.

t>AOR

Skit. I. Oonitruotion to jiravout evaHion 90A

tr Conitniotion to prevent abuic of |>owcrN . . . 326

CHAPTKR V.

RBBTRIOTION OP TRK TiANOI-'AGI': TO HK IN HARMONY
WITH OTHER I'RESl .>n'TIONB.

Srct. I. Pri'Humptionfl a<;iUD8t ousting ustablitihed, and croatiiiK

new, juriBdictioiiH ....... 285

11. The CrowD not afleoted if not named .... 244

CHAPTER VI.

THE HAMK SfU-IECT CONTINUED.

HicT. I. Presumption aguiuat iiitciuliug an cxcuhm of juriei-

diction 25o

II. PrcHumption af^ainrit ii violation of iriternationul law . 362

in. Uow far fettatutea conferring tiahU alfect foruitinerd 27''t

OHAI»TER VII.

CONSTRUCTION TO AVOIH < OLLISION WITH OTHKR

I'BOVISIONS.

Sbct. I. Ropugnanc^v— Repeal by implication— Acta in, or in-
volving, thu iiegiitive 2,so

II. Consistent uftirmative Acts ...,,_ i^ga

III. Generalia siR^c-ialibus non df rogant .... ;ii;^

rV. Implied repeal in puual Acts . . . . jj.j^j

COSTENTg.
OffAPTRR VIII,

* A, regard, „r,K...,i„r,. *"''''" '''"«'' "ghtn ;

881

CHAPTER IX.

i.XOB,.T,o.v,, C0.V„KUCT,0.V.

»«". I. Almlifloation of tl,„ i

■ 4-17
CHAPTER X.

STRICT CONSTBUOTION

vU

CHAPTER XI.

•^'"-■'■- I. K/loct of u,ug..

,irc"'?''°"'""™'"™'""'v -statutes' • ■ •

I"- Construction of word, in , ■ •

™"'tipIieit,vof„„rd, », „"""' "«rt*»-Kffoct
'V A^ooiated word, .IZ^^T "' '""''"'"'"

°"'"™"'" '-'-"'" e:,,re„io„, :

JSOl

. r.:ii
■';4i

f

•■<71
5M8

aoa

1^

yjii CONrKNTS.

CHAPTEE XII.

IHTENTIONS ATTBIBUTED TO THE LEOISLATUBE WHEN
IT EXPRESSES NONE.

PAOK

3.CT. I. ImpUed enaotmente-Necossary incidents and conae-

615
quenoes

II. Implied powers and obligations 823

III. Imperative or directory ...

IV. Lexnon cogit ad impossibilia-CuUibot licet renuntiare

juri pro se introducto ... ... 07

CHAPTER XIII.

THE SiME SVB.IECT.

Sbct. I. Contracts connected with illegal acts
II. Public and private remedies .
III. Eepeal—Iievival— Commencement

688
705
727

INDEX

743

TABLE OP CASES.

A.

•Aaronson, Ex » ctfru\ „ „,

22?

"'^^^#i?--«^»oi:..c^so,«^^

'*'^,i.^,"'- K. 143 • — . "" t^. .1. C'h. M: « I m

r.^": f C/i'^- '^ %!■ .77-; 24 ./j. C.-P ,^: \ ]: ». o«

Abel D. I«e flirn r ' 5' ''" .. ■'• f^- itw ; 1 Jur.

Ackers «._Ho„ar| ri«im r.-, V , ■• .. " ' '^ ^- «•

Adams I, n„i ," •• '^ "• ^""«'), 07 L J. q.b.

447
184
C!t8
642
321

lis

6

644
68U

118

X TABLE OF CASES.

PAOK

Adey i>. Trinity Houto (1863), 22 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 17 Jur. 489 .. 297
Aerated Bread Co. r. Gregg (1873), L. R. 8 Q. B. 365 ; 42

L. J. M. C. 117 ; 28 L. 'r 816 481,482

Agricola, The (1843), 2 W. Bob. 10; 7 Jur. 187 819

Ahier v. Ahier (1885), 10 P. D. 110 ; 64 L. J. P. D. & A. 70; 52

L. T. 744 ; 33 W. R. 770 677

Ailesbury «i. Pattiwm ( 1778), 1 Doug. 28 602

Akers v. Howard (1886), 1« Q. B. D. 739 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. 273 j

54 L. T. 651 ; 34 W. R. 609 ; 80 J. P. 619 .. 637,803

Alabama Arbitration (1872), London Gazette, Sen. 20, p. 4136 44
Albon 11. Pyke (1842), 4 M. & (i. 421 ; 2 Scott N. R. 241 ; 11

L. J. C. P. 266 239

Alderoon ». Palliaer (1001), 70 L. J. K. B. ».)5 681

AloMnder, 5iiJ1892] 1 Q. B. 216 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 677 ; 66 L. T.

133; 40 W.R. 202; 9M.B. R. 13 97

r. Newman (1846), 2 C. B. 141 ; ,' Lut. Reg. C«. 404 ; 15

L. J. C. P. 134; 10 Jur. 313; 69 R. R. 398 74

1'. Vaughan (1776), 1 Cowp. 40!) 267

Aleiander Laraen, The (1841), 1 W. Rob. 288 401

Alina, The (1880), 5 Ex. D. 227 ; 49 L. J. P. D. & A. 40 ; 42

L. T. 517 ; 29 W. R. 94 6,34 244

Alloroft i: London (Bp.), [18911 A. C. 666 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 62 ;

66 L. T. 92 ; 56 J. P. 773 432

Allen r. Flicker (18.39), 10 A. & E. 640 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 42 ; 4

P. & D. 736 ; 3 Jur. 1029 283 045

». Gold Reefs Syrd., [1900] 1 Ch. 666 ; 69 L. J. Ch 260 ' l.'in

1-. Small, [1904] 2 L R. 706, Ir. 474

r. Thompson (1870), L. R. 6 Q. B. 336 ; 39 L. J. M. C.

102; 22L. T. 472; 18 W. R. 1196 490

Alliance Bank of Simla r. Corey (1880), 5 C. P. D. 429 • 49

L. J. C. P. 781 ; 29 W. R. .306 ; 44 J. P. 736 278

AUkins r. Jupo (1877), L. R. 2 C. P. D. 375 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 824 ■

36L. T. 861 ' u

Allsopp V. Day (1862), 7 H. & N. 457 ; 31 L. J. Kx. 105 ] 8 Jur.

N. S. 41 ; 6 L. T. 320 .. .. 212

Alma Spinning Co., Be (1881), 16 Ch. D. 681 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 167"-

43L.T. 620;29W.R.133 .. .. 20o

Alresford l^ Scott (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 210 ; 50 L. J. M. 0. laT-

46L. T. 73;29W.R741;46J. P. 619 .. .. «»i

Alton Wood's Case (1600), 1 Rep. 47 .. " 28^

Altrinchani Union Assent. Com. v. Cheshire Lines Com.' (1885)'

15Q. B. D. 697; 50J.P. 85 .. fm

Amalia, The (1863), 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 471 ; B * "L 15i'.

? .-J,- ^- "" ' 1" ^^- «• 2* ; 8 L- T. 679 ; 32 L. J.'p m'
<BA. 191 057 CTTjj 07-

Amtot^te R^. Co. r. MMand Hy. Co. (1853), 2 El. & Bl. 793 ; '

Ambler ••Bradford Cor|«ration, [lis02] 2 Ch. 594' " " "^

Amedie, The (1810), l.\cton, 240 .. •' .„'.;.

American fur C„. ,-. r. S. (1829), 2 Peters 367 '.'. ['. W 4m

TABLE OF CASES
l™w,A(lg7a)fj,p9-l«]P.« .; •• .. 7(10,

— ayxVirio'"'''"'*^''«<^»ao4i- ■• •• ::
— fS^Ji''""--267 ■• •• •■ :: •• ••
T-("^:K^ • ■■■ :: - ••" •■

Anstey «,. Edward, /'l»--^ . •• •• **■ ^ i 108

•• I-- J. Ex. :m- it r, n . * M. 274 • 4 M r .;

xi

34«

381
85.'!

Ha

7i8
127

05

022
()92

632
2(«
314
44«
003
713
304

41

RIO

sm

120

474

«74

301
244
032

47TjK.?i'?V',^S'''"'«''a878r>i . „•• ••
-^-™oM (i^7)^'^^» y^ ;f ^:'3i;^'''-- -»;

-^.«^aMi«^,tg^'i^^;^aK^ ,: ;;

' - '^^ •'■ M. C. 161 ; 17

430

093

307

270
201

644

XU TABLE OP CA8B8.

, rAOi

Ari«w Shipping Co. v. Tyiie CommiasionoM, [1804j A. C. 508;

63 L. J. P. D. & A. 146 ; 71 L. T. 346, H. L X*i

Arthur*. Bokenhnni (1708), II Mod. 150 149

Average Alwiciirtion, Ite (1876), L. R. 10 Ch. S42 ! 44 L. J.

Ch. 569 ; 32 L. T. 713 ; 23 W. R. 939 512

A«coiigh'» Cmb (1638), C'ru. Car. 526 244,245

Ash r. Abdy (1678), 3 .Swanit. (i64 49, :f84, 511

V. Lynn (1886), L. R. J.^. B. 270 ; .'« L. J. M. C. 139 ; 14

L. T. 224; 14 W. R. 583; 7B. &S. 255 3<X)

Aslibumham f. Bradshnu- (1740), 2 .\tk. .10 384

Ashbnrton, Lord v. N.vcton. [1915] 1 Ch. 274, C. A 298

Ashbury &c. Ci>. i'. Riclie (1875). L. R. 7 H. L. 653 ; 44 L. .1.

Ex. 18.'.; 33L. T. 4.-1I, H. L 577,019,620,071

A«hby D. Whitu (1703). 1 Km. L. C. (12lh cd.) 260 .. .. 714

.il»hdown I). Curtis (1862), 31 L. .1. 51. C. 210 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 511 ;

« L. T. 331 ; 10 W. R. 607 077

Ashford k. Thornt..n (1818). 1 B. A Aid. 405 ; 19 R. R. 349 .. 730
Ashton-nnder-Lyna v. Pugh, [1898] 1 Q. 11. 45 ; 67 L. J. (J. B.

32; 77L. T. 583; 46 W. K. KJO; 01 J- P- 788 .. 314

Asiatic Potroloum Co. v. Lcnnard's Carrying Co., [1914J 1 K. f(.

419, C. A 270, 677

Aspinall v. Sutton, [1894] 2 Q. B. 349 ; (i3 L. J. M. C. 205 ; 58

J. P. 622 65«

Athluniney, flf, [1898] 2 Q. B. 551 391

Atlcins V. Kilby (1840), 11 A. & E. 777 ; 9 L. .1. M. C. 52 ; 52

R. R. 503 679

Atkinson, Re (1882), 21 Ch. D. HK) ; 51 L. J. Ch. 452 ; 46 L. T.

850 ; 30 W. R. 562 270

1'. Bradford BIdg. Soc. (1890), 26 Q. B. D. 377 ; 59 L. J.

Q. B. 300; «2L. T. 857; 38\V. R. 630 454

V. Newcastle Waterworks Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 441 ; 46 L. J.

Ex. 775 1 36 L. T. 761 ; 25 W. R. 794 . . 715, 721. 722

V. Sellers (1859), 6 C. B. N. S. 442 ; 28 L. .1. M. C. 12 ;

5 .Jur. N. S. 21 ; 116 R. R. 720 121

Att •y-General ir. A Uxander (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 20 ; 44 L. .1 .

i-.v. 3 ; 31 L. T. 694 ; 23 W. R. 253 li!(

». AUgood (1743), Parker 3 244

V. Bailey (1847), 1 Ex. 281 ; 17 L. .T. Ex. 9 ; 74 R. R. 672 107

V. Barker (1872), L R. 7 Ex. 177 ; 41 L. J. Ex. 57 ; 20 L. T.

34; 20 W. R. 509 049

f. Basingstoke (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 720 ; 24 W. R. 817 .. 7(lit

V. Bradbury (1851), 7 Ex. 97 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 12 ; 10 Jur. I;i0 6()7

V. Bradlaugh (1883), 14 Q. B. D. 667 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 206;

52 L. T. 589; :i3 W. R. 073 608, 708

V. Brecon (1878), 10 Ch. D. 204 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 153 ; 40 L. T.

52; 27 W. 11. ;«2 .. (;2li

II. BrisbJ (1820), 2 Jac. * W. 321 ; 22 R. R. 136 .. '.'. 5;)3

1). CanibridKo (185"1), L. R. 6 H. L. ;!03 ; 22 W. K. 37 . 330

V. Campbell (18Vi), L. R. 3 H. L. 524 ; 41 L. .1. Cli.

Oil; 21W.R. .!4n 271,

TABLE OV CASES.
^.:- S™i"i' .Cllie.^ tU S 'Z'V*- !»''

- '■_. D»vio, (1802). „ v,„ M.: . i- . .. . . • "•" • -^

xiU

FASH
filO

281

w. R. mi .. - — , •« i,. J,

«2K. R. B40 ^ ^-'' '" *f- * >V. 1,7; n ^ j j,: .,^;>4, 45S

y- Hackney Bo»rd nxk\T ',7^' *^- "■ 5!«», H L ' '

045 ;;« I,.\ ^,^ (18'"). L. U. 20 E,,. «26firi;- J cV
''■ Hallott (1857) 2 „•■..„ •■ .. ' ' J-- J. Ch.

778 ;« W.'i X' ■ ^''- •"' ■■ «•• !■• J- Ch. 626 , 8i x -K
"• HiU (183(i) 2 M t."m ,•■ ^•

"• Hooper, ri893l"<t PI ■•.„, ■• ■■ ■*''-W»;4«

^tei^»«--^^w;«.B.2.7:^
-^-a3a,2H.*c.347:33x:-...;:2«;«;;

~':-^ssni^?i^i™"i^oi^.,„r8,,;,^,.;^^;j..728

'■**■ ■■ ■• •. .m

328

300

!>7

231

248

B41
602

32

TABLE OP CASES.

AMorncy-Qcnoral v. L.ickwood (1842), » M. * \\.:i,H; 10 Id.

4(14 : n Jur. m 11), 14(i, .till ass. 40fi, 470

„. L. ft N. W. Ily. (1881). B It- B. D. 21« i BO L. J. Q. B.

170 ; 44 L. T. 23« i 2« W. II. ;14« ; 45 .». P. 390 .. ..501)

• ». L.C.C. (1901). TO L. J. Cli. Sli?, 0. A 821)

V. Maiicheiter (1881J, 18 Cli.iD. (iO!l ; 30 L. .1. Ch. 5«3 . . 47

„. , [)<;06] 1 Ch. 043 ; 75 L. J. Oil. 330 ; 54 W. R. 307 ;

70.T. P. 201 • 020

1.. Mumite Pier Co., [1900] 1 Ch. 749 ; 09 h. .T. Ch. IWl ;

82L. T:448; 48 W. R. ,518; 81.T. I'. 4«> 75

f. Morjoy Ry., [1907] lA. C. 415; 76 L. J. Ch. 5«8 ; 97

L. T. B24 ; 71J. P 449 231,610

1>. Metr.in. Hy. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 384 ; 69 L. T. 811 ; 42

W. R. .Wl ; .53 J. P. 342 .. .. • 028

V. Niipior (1850, » Ex. 217 ; 20 L. J. Ej. 173; 16 Jur.

2,53 : 86 B. K. 247 271

V. Nfwcastle-iipon-Tyne ami N. E. Ry. Co. (1889), 23

Q. B. 1). 492 ; 58 U .1. y. H. .5.58 020

r. Pantiir (1772), 6 Bro. P. C. 480 740

— B. Parker (1747), 3 Atk. 570 116,532

■ V. Poiitvpridd, [190U] 2 Ch. 257 ; 75 L. J. Cli. 678 ; 95

L. T. 224 ; 70 .1. P. 394 ; 4 L. G. R. 791 231

V. Richmond (Duke), [1909] A. C. 466 ; 78 L. .1. K. B. 1,

998; lOlL. T. 241, H. L 220

. . i^. Saggers (1814), 1 Pri. 182 480

D. Seacombe (1911), 80 L. .1. K. B. 913 218

.■. Siddon (1830), 1 Cr. & .). 220 ; 1 Tyr. 41 ; 35 R. R. 701 189

V. Sillom (186;)), 2 H. A C. 431 ; 10 .lur. N. .S. 262 ; 33

L. ,1. Ex. 93; 12 W. R. 257 ; 11 L. T. 223 .. .. 4,'), 51
V. (1864), 10 H. L. Cas. 704 ; S.i L. .1. Ex. 209 ; 10

.Jur. N. S. 446 ; 10 L. T. 4.34 400,519

V. Smith, [1893] 1 Q. B. 239 ; 02 L. J. Q. B. nS ; 68 L. T.

0 ; 41 W. R. 246 ; 57 .1. P. .189 505

.1. Southampton (1849), 17 Sim. 6 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 393 .. I'Sli

V. Tlleobal J (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 537 i 02 L. T. 768 ; 38

W. R. .527 ,395, 4(KI

t). Tvndall (1764), Arabl. «14 21,-,

V. Tynemouth Corp. (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 489 .. .. 620

V West Ghiucestershirc Water Co,, [1909] 2 Ch. 338 ; 78

L. ,T. Ch. 746 ; 101 L, T. 2.58 ; 73 .1. P. 453 . . .. 2:il

.— V, Westminster Chambers Association (1876), 1 E^ D

469 ; 45 L. .J. Ex. 880 ; X, L. T. 224 ; 24 W. R, 996 .. 4, 71

i>. Weymouth (174:l), Ambl. 22 '74

Attorney.General cf British Coiumliia v. (J^trum, [19041 A C

144 ; 73 L. J. P. C. 11 ; 89 L. T. 509 ; 20 T. L. R. 64, P. C. .-•'!,-,
Attorney-General (Ontario) u. A.-O. Dominion of Canada

(1896), 65 L. J. P. C. 26 524

Attree v. Hawe (1878), 9 Ch. D. :B7 ; 47 L. .1. Ch. 863 ; 38 L T

733; 26 W. R. 871 216

TABLE OF CASKS.

428
»8

528, 633
B.

Badcock V. Hunt fS's^oi""'™ 162

. ., 9 W K. 27I ^^!' " ^- !*• N- S. 843 ; .30 i: J c-p ,-j.W,
""■lyi'.DeCre.pigny-flg^^;- b' ■• . " "'• •^- P- loO;

163

188

513

687
143

429

314

334

436
563
702
193

«I7

xvi TABLli OK ('ASKS.

H,.iawh>, E^ p. (18.-,8), a De G. 4 J. 2:10 ; 27 L. J. Bank. 17 ;

4 Jur. N. S. Bi2 ,.,••, n, ■■,.11 '!■, 1 T

Ball, tlx p. (m-i), -M Ch. D. 1)70; 51 L. J. Cli. »11 i 47 L. 1.

213 i 30 W. K. 738 .. f"

Hall. .. Attwood (17BI). 1 H. Bl. MB .. -. •■ •• -«

l!,„,cr..ft ft MitchoU (1M7), L. R. 2 g. B. J4I) ; .W L. J. Q. U,

257 • IB L. T. 558 i 15 W. U. 1132 ; 8 B. * S. 5i)8 .. ., KXi

B,.,.o ;/ iM«"huen (?^4), 2 Bing. .W ; » .M""ro IBl ; 27 B. B. r,4« «24
Bank .,t Bengal ». Kamanalinu Chotty (1»1«), U U. 43 Ind.

A ^M 1' r* • * * " > • 1 Oit

ILnli ,,?■ En'slaiid" v. Ande^.n (IW), 3 Bing. N. C. 581., fi«fl ,

7 L. J. Ch. 2B5 ; 44 R. K. 271 .. •• , •• „ •; ,^ 213, 031
,■. VaKliano, [1891] App. Ca.. 107 ; BO L. .1. Q. B. H5 ; «4

L. T. :«;! ; 39 VV. K. B57, H. L ^ •• „ *<, 10"

B,Hik of N. 8. Wale. v. Pipor, [18971 A. C ;t83 ; Bfl L. J. P. C.

73 ; 71! L. T. 572; 61 J. P. (iBO, P. 0 19.)

Banki.fScollaMd». Stewart (1891), 28 So. L.K. 730, So. .. (127

Bank of U. S. V. Donnally (1834), 8 Peter. 3(11 .. .. .. 27,

Balikes r. Small (1887), ;«i Ch. D. 7in ; o8 L. J. Ch. 8.i2 ; 57

L. T. 292 ; 35 W. R. 7B5 l'-"

Bankruptcy Notice, Be A, [189.".] 1 g. B. BOO ; «4 L. J. «. B.

4>>» • 43 W. R. 305 ; 72 L. T. 312 ; 2 MalM. 1«4 .. .. 97

Bank. V. Hollingsworth, [1893] 1 (J. B. 443 ; (12 I.. J. CJ. B. 2311 ;

(W L. T. 477 ; 41 W. R. 225 ; 57 J. P. 43(i 171

Barber .'. (iamson (1821), 4 B. & AM. 281 .. •■..•• «1
„. Waitu (1834), 1 A, & E. 514 ; 3 N. & M. (ill ; 3 L.J. M. C.

101 !"*

Barclay, Ex v. (1874), L. U. 9 Ch. 5li7 ; 43 h. .1. Ch. 449; 30

L. T. 479 ; 22 W. R. 808 174

. B. Poar»in (1893), B2 L. .1. Ch. (fct« 19!l

Barker r. Edgar, [1898] A. C. 749 ; U7 L. J. P. C. 115 ; (19 L. T.

151 ai"'

I.. Palmer (1881), 8 (J. B. D. 9 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. 110; 45

L. T. 480 ; 30 \V. R. 69 BJB

Barkworth v. Young (18.5lil, 4 Drew. 1 ; 2« L. .J. Ch. 1.53 ; 3 .tur.

N. S. 34 ; 5 W. U. l.-rfi 512

Barlow V. Bo.. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. :W1 ; 69 L. .1. Q. B. 183 , B2

L. T. 562; 38W. R.372; .54J.P. BfiO io.lliS
V. Teal (1886), '5 ij. B. D. 4113; 54 L. .1. Q. B. 4IX) ; 53

L.T. 52 543. BIM

V. Terrett, [1891] 2 g. 1!. 107 ; BO L. J. M. C. 104 ; 05 L. T.

148; 39 W. R. B40; 55.1. P. B32 475

Barnacle i: Clark. [IIKW] 1 Q. B. 279 ; 69 L. .1. Q. B. 15 ; 81 L. T.

484 : 48 W. R. .'CiB ; 04 J. P. 87 4!W

Barnari! ... Ford, |18H2] A. C. 32(1 ; Bl L. .1. IJ. B. 728; B7

L. '1. 1 ; 5« .1. P. B39, H. L .171

Barnes i-. Ackrovd (1872), L. B. 7 (j. B. 4'^4 ; 41 L. J. M. C. 110 ;

20 L. T. BO'i ; 20 W. R. B71 137,189

«. Olenton, [189!l| 1 (,). B. 885 ; B8 L. .1. (J. B. 502 ; 8 L. T.

BOB ; 47 W. B. 435 :lO:i

TABLE OK CASES.

xvtt

"«"•'• Show, (,84„)g<^ ■

— «•• Taylor OsSm ,"{ !'*")• 17 Barbo'ilr Jf v, ,t » '^^'' *-'«. «»l

— ". Mid w ,1™ il;; ji- f' « ; <« .1. 1', itir, ''• •'■ *^''- •'■'" ; w

^•ff W. R. 2W '■ '* ^- !•• 1< i M I,. J. J.. «,-;, 00 L T ,.,;• ''"'
BiitU-rsi.a Veslpv „ u ■ ' •• "* I •*

xviii TABLK or 0A8EB.

Buienilalu i'. Ihrt (IMS), U Kx. 7«U I 21 L. J. Kx. 123 ; 10 Jur.

12(i ; m; R. K. 4(15 41U

Bnxior V. Langlvy (1888), L. It. 4 C. R 21 j »« U .1. M. C. 1 ; IV

L. T. ;)2I ; 17 W. II. aw 575

llwil, Jixp. (IWW), L. H. .■! Q. B. :W7 i :t7 L. J. (i. B. 1111 j 18

L. T. ^85 : Itl W. It. 8i>2 ; » B. & ». ItllA 4HI,4U1

V. Ford (1878), :) C. P. D. 611 ; 47 L. ,1. C. 1'. Bfl ; 37 L. T.

408 ; 2« W. R. 140 ; 2 Hap. .«: U. 374 110

r. T<i»n Clork of K»oUir (1888). 20 Q. B. D. 301) ; 07 L. J.

g. B. 128 ; 58 L. T. 41*7 ! 30 W. R. fi«7 ; 1 Fox 31 .. 117

Beani v. KniKlit (1858), 8 E. & B. 8U3 ; 27 L. J. Q. B. 350 ; 4 Jur.

N. M. 782 ; 112 It. R. 8III 55:1

l>. Rowan (18:tf)), !l Peter. 317 71»

Boardiley t>. Oiadinjfi, [19041 1 K. II. 847: 73 L. J. K. B. :178 ;

1)0 L. T. 051 ; 0.-) W. R. 78 i 20 T. L. R. 315 ; (18 J. P. 222 101
Beaufort u. Svraniea (Mayor) (1840), 3 i;x. 413 ; 07 R. R. 077 541
Beoke v. Smith (1830), 2 M. & W. 101 ; 0 U J. Ex. 54 ; 40 H. R.

607 4, 4(Ki, 411

Buokott 11. Midland Hy. to. (18<i7), L. R. 3 C. P. 04 ; 30 L. J. C. P.

40 ; 15 L. T. 572 ! 15 W. It. 404 172,724

1'. Tower Aiaeti Co., [1801] 1 Q. It. «W ; 00 L. J. Q. B. 403 ;

55 J. P. 4;)8 ; 04 I,. T. 407 i 30 W. R. 4:18 211

Bockford V. Hood (1708), 7 T. R. 020 ; 4 II. R. 527 .. .. 710

V. Wade (1805), 17 Vet. Bl ; 11 R. R. 20 15;

Beckham II. Drake (1841), 2 II. L. 57»- II M. & W.31ui 12 1-. .1.

Ex. 480 ; 13 .Jur. 021 ; 81 11. R. JO: :m

Beokwith r. Talbot (1877), 5 Otto 280 512

Beddow V. Boddow (1878), 0 Ch. I). 80 ; 47 L. .1. Ch. 058 ; 20 \V. R.

670 151

Bedo i>. 8andor«on (1017), Cro. Jac. 440 ., .. .. .. 2I0

Beds V. St. Paul (1852), 7 Ex. 050 ; 21 L. J. M. C. 224 ; 80 R. R,

777 247

Beer 11. London tnd Paris Hotel Co. (1875), L. R. 20 Bi. 412 : 32

L.T.715 '.. .. oil

Beeaton v. Bomtoii (1870), 1 Ex. D. 13 ; 45 L. .1. Ex. 230 : 3.) L. T.

700;24W. R. 06 «iM

Bohn 11. BumeM (1801), 3 B. & S. 751 ; 32 L. J. O. B. 207 ; 8

L. T. 207 ; 0 Jur. N. S. 020 40

BehiBco V. Hannant (1802), 3 B. & S. 13; 31 L. J. M. C. 225 ■ U

Cox C. C. 203 ; 10 W. K. 807 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 122(i .. .. 81

Bell t). Bilton (1828), 4 Bing. 015 ;i!P.->

V. Crane (187.)), L. R. 8 IJ. B. 481 ; 42 L. J. M. C. i22 : 20

L. T. 207; 21 VV. R. Oil ..... 438

V. Dudley (E,irl), [1805] 1 Ch. 182 ; 04 T,. J. Ch. 291 ; 72

L. T. 14 ; 43 W. It. 122 .. iU^

Bellamy v. Dehenlium (18!ll)),45 Ch. D. 481 ; 0;t L. T. 220 512

II. Hc.ylo (1875), L. It. V) Ex. 220; 44 L. J. Ex. 100: 3.)

L. T. 21 ; 23 W. R. 754 .... 0'.".

— - V. Saull (180.3), 4 li. & S. 205 ; ;i2 U J. O. B. 300 ; 8 L. T.

534; 11 W. K. 8)KJ DOS

BoJI.i

TAIILB or CASES,

L T. 2i:i , I ) w ^^'V •' f. 1'. a« • 7)7 r V „ . •• •• um

kn.ley ,. Bi^ , ."^ .' M. A ,S. 1 •■ .. 7^

W' Ii. .7. (J u"un •;,
"■■". "^ foj c. c. IttM

xix

51

4a,

4411

fiijri
.V)l»

Mil

S»

724

UJ4

••>■«, .■i«7
N 111.

'I'',4!M
"-'«, r:i2

(IINi

lao

OKI

V l/'""''" (1833) -5 F (? iHi'"!'""- »71 ■■

Suil

4411

am

(i3
41U

XX TABI.K <W I'AUEH.

rAAr
IMhitlll I'.DfJKl! OKU). W \M«X -Vii; :> U .1. «', I', m i ♦ M. *

Sc'iill, s:»>; :w H. H. 44» wi

B«tM ». Arni.tmil (lltH8), !!!( U- I'- D- '"' ! W l' •'• *•. ('. UW-.M

L. T. KllllKlV. 11. ;Wi M.l. I'. 471 .. •■ . " "*'
V. HtevpiH, riHKl] 1 K. It. I i 7» I.. ■'. K. It. 17 ; Mil L. T.

fi*M' 7:1.1. P. 4H«1 ***'*

B<rtn r.' WoUimcii IiimikIukuiiI 11m Light Co., [lUOa] 2<l K. I', f.

tni MK'

Biddollr. Lm«lor(182;<), I II. &!'. .W .. .• .. ■• ■<«

Biddulph ". Ht. (lei.me'i Vmtry (1HH4), :l:l I- J. Cll. 411 i 1> .lur.

N.H. 4.14: HUT. 441 II W. R. ft24 l.'i>7

BiUn .. Yorko (IMD), fi M. A Or. 428 ; I'J L. J. C. P. 102 ; 6 Scott

N. R 2:(4; (UIK. R. .'W 7,11

Bilflior I', (^tmxl (1H8H). ID U R. Ir. n<'>, Ir 2in

Biiira i>. MitohoU (18tl2), 2 B. & S. MS ; 31 L. J. M. C. l(Ut ; 8 Jiir.

N. M. 817; HI,. T. 242; low. R. 5f)» Ml

Bill !■. lUinont (1840, 9 M. A W. Iltli 11 h. J. Kx. 81 ; (10 R. R.

«08 f'l2

BillinMi'. Priim(177.")) 2 W. Bl. 1017 1145

Billi r, Siiiilh (IH)ir>\ il II. ,(' H. .'114 ; M L. .1. Ij. B. 68 ; 11 Jur.

N. S. IM ; 12 L. T. 22 i l:l W. K. 4117 214

Binni r. Hev (1843), 1 l>. * L. «tll : 13 U -I- >l. B. 28 ; 7 Jur.

1134 ■ 402

llimtesd, K-. [18«31 1 y. 11. IWt; Ii2 I, ,1. y. B. 21-7 i «8 L. T.

.•11 I 41 W. K. 452 • II M. 1). K. 31!l !I7

llireh r. Ijiki. (IU74), 1 Mod. 1«.-. 2«l

Birchall «. Ilullimijh, [I8l)ti] 1 (.1. II. 32."i; (m L. .1. l). B. 252; 74

L. T. 27 : 44 VV. K. :iOI) 2IM

Bi.-d V. Aili.'.)ik (1878). 47 L. .1. M. C. 123 ; 2(1 W. R. (KU 328, 7:14
.>. Unvey, [18!»1] 1 (J. B. 2« i (13 L. T. 741 i «0U .l.y. B. 8;

:mW. R. 40 l(i

Birkenht'ad Di>d<i r. Liiird (1853), 4 I.>ii (i. M. & II. 7.'I2 ; 2:1

L. J. Ch. 457 ; 18 ./ur. 8a3 :t28

Birkmyr ». Darnell (1704), 1 Sill. L. C. illit 273

Birley v. Chorlton (1841), 3 Bcav. 4011 ; 52 R. R. 202 .. .. KK!

BimiiiiKKiun v. Sh.iw (1840), 10 g. II. 808 : 3 New Sen. Vm. 445 ;

18 L. J. M. C. 8» ; 13 Jur. .•157 ; 74 H. R. 523 ., .. ;UI

Bimi« I'. Mar«luill (1870), :15 L. T. :t73 mt:

Biihop f. Bryant (1834), G C. * P. 484 (17!)

». Curtia (1852). 18 y. U. 878 ; 21 I,. .1. II 11. :«)1 ; 17

,Iiir. 23 ; 88 R. II. 819 JM

u. Dutry(18S4), 22R. 102; Sli). 12,

liiahopa, Cas« of (100(i), 12 Kep. 7 727

Blackburn i'. Piirkinscm (IHM), 1 K. & E. 71 ; 28 L. .1. M. C. 7 ;

117 K. R. 145 LMil

Blackburn (Mayor) v. .SiindirRoii, [1002] 1 K. B. 7«4 ; 71 L. J.

K. B. 590; 8(iL.T.:iOt; IW.I. P. 452 'Mg

Blackmore i'. Milu Knd Vestry (1882), 9 g. B. D. 451 ; 51

L. .I.y. l!.49li; 4(i I,. T. 809; :») W. R. 740 .. 7M

TADtK or CAsKa

mJ^l**^^^^'^- '^- -' "^ LJ. i.;-c. „;

«•!■» -• A^il • •,ii4?i & 1'?,' "' I- T. 4.1 ,i» W" U ... • •■'?«
BUi-^^.Vri r T'""":'^--' ^■". «i.«). iM, ..K. ,«•. ""i

'X)L. T.r«.i T\^..V; 1;^ laoi M L. j. ,V j, r . ■■

»'"■■' '■■ IJe«l„p (iKtaV T V V „ ■• .. • ''' I' J- Wi.

•Mi

41

WJU

^';:«•^i^«4■i.l^/i„^•„, .:

W4
IIH

Will
4Wi

IIHl
.-148

ttiiiar t. Mitchell /i«iLi\ - ..■ ■• ^' **■ '•'7 i )3
"• EviiM i-iiuii., .V. , •■ '■-».& J". !(;i ; H

042

1*1

.''•<;»

117
'Ml

mitt

xxu

TAULB OF CASES.

PAOI

Bonnewell v. Jenkins (1878), 8 Ch. D. 70 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 758 ;

38 L. T. 81 ; 26 W. R. 294 612

Bonomi v. Backhouse (1866), 9 H. L. 603 ; E. B. * E. 622 ; 27
L. J. Q. B. 378; 28 Id. 380 ; 34 Id. 181 ; 7 Jur. N. S. 80» ;

!) W. R. 789 ; 113 R. R. 7!I9 12

Boodle i>. Davis (1863), 8 Ex. 3.il ; 22 L. J. Ex. 09 .. 402

Boon V. Howard (1874), L. K. 9 C. P. 2''7 ; 43 L. J. C. i'. 115 ;

29 L. T. 382 ; 22 W. B. 533 ; 2 Hop. & C. 208 .. 357, 4»7

Booth V. Bank of England (1840), 7 CI. & F. 609 ; 2 Scott N. R.

701 ; 6 Bing. N. C. 416 ; 4 Jnr. 7(i2 ; 44 B. R. 272 .. 213

■ V. Olive (1881), 10 C. B. 827 ; 3 L. M. * P. 283 ; 20

L. J. C. P. 151 ; 15 Jur. DBS 414

f. Ibbotson (1827), 1 Yo. & J. 360 631

t>. Trail (1883), 12 Q. B. D. H i 5.) L. J. Q. B. 24 ; 49 L. T.

471 ; 32 W. R. 122 711

Boothroyd, He (1846), 15 M. & W. 1 ; 15 L. J. M. C. 67 ; 10

Jur. 117 446

Bosiinquot V. Woodford (184;!), 5 (J. B. 310 ; D. * M. 419 ; 13

L. J. Q. B. 93 I 8 Jur. 242 ; 64 R. R. 504 669

Boaley v. Davies (1876), 1 Q. li. IX 84 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 27 ; .'C!

L. T. 528; 24 W. R. 140 191, 351, .-)65

Rostock V. N. Staffordshire Ry. Co. (1852), 3 .Sm. & O. 283 ; 25

L. J. CI). 325 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 245 ; 107 R. R. 89 .. .. 526

V. Rilrasey U. D. C, [1900] 2 Q. B. 616 ; 09 L. J. Q. B. 945 ;

83 L. T. 358 ; 64 J. P. 660 ; 10 Times R. 520 .. .. 3."i9

Bottomley v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1916), 84

L. J. K. B. ;i54, ". C 210

Bottomley's Case (1881), 16 Ch. D. 681 ; 50 L. J. Ch. 167 ; 43

L. T. 620 ; 29 W. R. l.)3 6.-)4

Boucicault V. Chattertou (1877), 5 Ch. D. 273 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 305 ;

35L. T. 745; 23 W. R, 2C- 99

Bound V. Lawrence, [1892] 1 Q. B. 226 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 21 ;

65 L. T. 844 i 40 W. R. 1 ; 36 J. P. 118 iHr,

Bourke v. Nutt, [1894] 1 (). B. 723 9

Bower r. Peate (1876), 45 L. J. y. B. 446 (J;I3

Bowlby f . Bell (1846), 3 C. B. 284 ; 4 RIy. Cas. 692 ; 16 L. J. C. P.

18; 10 Jur. 689 575

Bowman v. Blyth (1857), 7 E. & B. 26, 47 ; 26 L. J. M. C. 57 ; 10 •

Jur. N. S. .-M 167,649,064

Bows V. Fonwick (1874), L. R. 9 C. P. 339 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 107 ;

30 L. T. 524 i 22 W. R. 804 129, ."ilKI

Bowyer y. Bampton (1741), 2 .Stra. 1155 .. .. ,. .. ;;7l'

Boyce V. Biggins (1834), 14 C. H. 1 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 5 ; 18 Jur.

33;i ; 98 K. K. 510 345

Boydellu. Drunnnond (181)9), 11 East 142; 2 Cauipb. 157; 10

R. R.45(l 4,V) 51"

Boyle t>. Suiith, [19061 1 K. B. 432 ' lU

Brace v. Abercarn Colliery Co., [1891J 2 Q. H. 699 ; 60 h. J. Q. It.

706; 40 W.R. 3; 56 J. P. 20 364

Bracy's Case (1696), 1 JSalk. 34H 4115

TABLK OF CASES.

X3d{

lot)

^85 ; 74 R. It 40J) ^- "■ *-*- ; 11 Jur. 755
reslftuer V. Brnwii /'iw-Q\ o".

3(>r>

237

121

20

541

44!)
714

, u(M

32(i

.'!(iS
4f,7

:m

70.)
l,-)(i

i i« I'- .1. y. B,

t'h. .•i.s4; 4:'i

24(i, 247

4S2

fl«l

158

H2

, *i7 *r. |(, Mya

^ewr „. Mcti„,ver (IWO;, L I{ no „

'4'° ». liranel, (i87,n j^c i' n !^,

-"■ Pamm, n«„n o .r i ' "• <■•« ! •« L. T. (Ktt

J- M. C. 03

,■'>"•• N. S. 7!WT7 L TV'S .. - • •■'- ^- ■

.. ll!l

.. im

<W5, fi8(i

55.* t

474

59U

XXiv TABLE Oil' CASKS.

rjioE
Bridger, Be, I18M] 1 Ch. 297 ; «3 L. .1. Ch. 18(1 ; 70 L. T. 204 ;

42\V. k'l7» .. .. •'W8

V. Richanlion (1814), 2 M. & S. «i« ; 15 R. R- 353 .. 581

. 1-. Savage (18851, 15 Q. B. D. ;)«3 ; 54 L. J. Q. B., 404 ; 5a

h. T. 129; S) \V. R. 891 ; 49 .1. P. 73S 092

Briorley Hill Local Board l>. I'earaall (1884), 54 L. J. ij. B. 25,

U L 242

Brig Ann, The (1812), 1 GalliBon, «2 740

Brigdon 11. Heighea (1876), 1 y. B. D. 330 ; 45 L. J. M. 0. 58 ; 34

L. T. 242 ; 24 \V. R. 272 221,350

Brighton Guanlinna v. Strand-fiuardians, [1891] 2 Q. B. 166 ; 60

L. J. M. C. 105 ; 84 L. T. 722 ; 39 W. R. 681 ; 65 J. P. 743 .ViO
Brighton Marine Co. i>. Woodhoiiao, [mn] 2 Ch. 486 ; 02 L. J.

Ch. 697 i B8 L. T. 089 ; 41 W. R. 488 40

Brighty v. Norton (1882), 3 B. & S. 305 ; 32 L. J. Q. B. 38 ; 9

Jur. N. S. 495 ; 7 L. T, 422 ; U W. U. 107 008

Brindle, i;jrp. (1887). 56L. T. 498 570

Bristol Auratert Bread Cn. v. Maggs (1890), 44 Cll. D. 610 ; 59

L. J. Ch. 472 ; 82 h. T. 416 ; 38 \V. K. 574; 2 Mug. 15<),

203 512

City, The (1901), 71 L. J. P. 5 522

Corporation D. Sinnett, [1918] 1 Ch. 02, C. A 342

Tramways Co. e. Fiat >Iotur». [191U] 2 K. B. 8:fl ; 79

L..). K. B. 1109; 103L.T. 443; 2I)T. L. K. 029 .. .. 48

Briatow u. Piper, [1915] 1 K. li. 271 121

Britain i'. Rossitor (1879), 11 Q. B. D. 128; 48 L. .1. Kx. 362 ; 40

L. T. 240 ; 27 W. R. 482 4.-iri

British Farmers, Ac. to., Itc (1878), 48 L. .1. Ch. 50 ; :« h. T.

757 ; 20 W. R. 81)9 (•

Insulated Wire Co. v. Prcscot U. D. C, [1895] 2 (J. B. 403 ;

04 L. J. Q. B. 811 ; 73 L. T. 38;) ; 44 W. R. 224 .. (i71

■ Linen Co. v. Druramond (18;i0), 10 li. & C. 903 ; 34 R. R.

596 u:x

■ South Africa Co. v. Ue Beers Minos, [1910] 2 Cli. 502; 79

L. J. Ch. ;)43 ; 80 I.. .T. Ch. 03 ; 1(J3 L. T. 4 ; 54 S. .). U79;

revsd., [1911] W. N. 245, H. L 820

SiUicycIates, Be, [l»19]2Ch. 155 m

Britt V. Robinson (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 503 ; ".9 L. .1. C. P. 285 ;

23 L. T. 18H ; 18 W. R, S80 49.".

Britton t). Wiird (1819), 2 Hoi. 127 484

Broiidhent v. Imperi.il Gas Co. (1867) 9 Do «. M. & O. 4:i6 ; 28

L. .1. Ch. 276;.3 Jur. N. S. 221 il2

V. Shepherd, [1901] 2 K. B. 274 ; 70 L. J. K. P.. 828 ; 84

L. T. 844; 49\V. R.621; «5.(. P. 499 .-mo

Bro.idhend r. Holdsworth (1877\ 2 E.\. D. :!21 ; 40 L. .1. M. ('.

172; SOL. T. 320 .. 4S4

Brockbank v. Whitehaven Ry. Co. (1847), 7 H. * N. 8;i4 ; 31

L. J. Ki. .'MO .. .. .. 437

Broekelbank, & (1889), 23 y. B. D. 481 ; 68 L. ,1. y. B. 376:

81 L. T. 543 ; .37 W. R. 537 ; 8 M. li. K. 13« 3M, 121

TABLE OF CASES.
Brocjko „. Sh«igau, (1873). l'r s O t. ,:■■ •• '

^ 74 y. ^^\g' K- "; l"".- «0 L. J. K. b: 147 ,"103 LT -^f '■
«<■ 1864), 5 B. .t H 2«)'. vi t" , - ■•

"■ HoB-ard (1820) "B i-R -■.■ •• •■ '"'■•'''.

W. R. 522 '"* ' '^ '^- J- *-'• P- 2«» ; « JurVs. U,i-,* };!

— ".London <fc N w n" ^ " ■• .. '

— "• MtMi an (184(il I? M r M. • ■**>* .. '

XXV

162

:m

215
714

?61

128

168

6»4

4(12

Ml
<>4li

187

671
150
619

520
,6;J2

699

190

(KH

29.3

705
12

687
318
571

32,-.

xxvi

TABLE OF CASES.

Brown.. Patch, ri8M]lQ.B.««;68LJ.Q.B588;80U'r
n6;«W.ll.6p:8,)J.P.4il 856,

__%o.„b., aSOl] 1 Q. B:"253^; io L. J. Q. B 38 , 64 L. T.

114;5oJ.P. 359;iroximi.. ..
nrown'»'Ca»e(1799),2BjrtP.C487 .. •■ _
Browne v.^Tnmd»d(W87), ^7 ChJ^ ^ j^ j Uank.lM;
Browninst, £«p(18'*. ^- "i,

Browurigg V Pik« (IS^^). »1 L- •'■ ^ ij;. 2^ ; 03 J. P. 320 ..

Bn>wn»combe r. Johnson a»«»); '» fi ^.g •

Bruce, Re (1832), 2 Cr * J. ^ : 2 T^- «» k;* O. 352 ; 30
Brumlitt v. Brcmner (I860), 9 t- »• f ■ ,p ^^^ g y, ^ 144

L- J- «■ P- ,=^UI''rR 'rf C • 224 ; 39 L J. C. P. 95 ; 22
— L"-Sr;'i8W%Mi7^:iHop.*C-3«7 .- •• 1««

Brunor ... Moore, i^^^^^i- '^ 3 q. bV418;'37 L. J. M. C.
BrmwkiUv. Watson (1808), L.M.JW-

103 ; 18 LT. ■W2; 16 f ;,»• H. 381 ; 4 L. J. K. B. 228
Bruyeres t>. Halcomb (18J8), jS A. o- r,. . 429 : 19 L. J. Ex.
BryL..Child(lM0),5Ex^.i68 1L.M..^P.4 .,„_

264 ; 14 Jur. 510; 82 K. "• 'i" , .jg-Q, L. E. 0 Ex.

Bucc^uch a>uke c^..|t.5.^B. ..nW^^ S.Vb H. L. 418;

Bucktrst Pe?;;«f -^^W^ I34 L. j. m." C. 43;

Buckle ..\Vngnt.on(18MX0B-^.h.to4^j,2

Bulkil^":^h»lXL:R:i'1'.C.764;«Moo.P.C.KS.^

Bull*' Chapn..n (1863), 8 sk'. m^M ^ J- E- 257 ; 91 R. R.

Bnuf?oal.MiningCo.;:O»l»%,[lB09] a;-C.351 ; 08L. J.P. C.

Bult^ef i S,LI; f fruTteTinVn^-ru^ (IBio), 32 i. L. R.

Bun,^,'£. p. (1857),"i De G. & ii 119^20 L. J. Bank. 83;

SJur.N. S.1141.. .. ••

Burburyr. Jackson, [1917] IJi-]'- JS ,

149; 36

W. R. 896; 5M.B. E. 166

J. y. B. ."i7» ; 59 L. T.

800
677

14

139

487
653

702
384
523
270

660

, 674
43

615
554

567

538
704

300

268

690

12

218

114

612

„. Kennedy (1757), » At k 739

Burdett, ire (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 310 •

708 ; 3« W. B

34o; ,5M. B. R. 32, C. A.

57L..i.Q. B.263; 58L.T

■02,

Burg'e v.L5"hleyrndS„,iti,, [1!)^] 1 «■ B. 744 ; 69 L. J. Q. B.

S.")8 ; 82

L. T. .118; 48W. R. 4:i8

70:1
19-,(

TABLE OP CASES.

; 74

BurgoM 0. Wickham (18fl3) 3 n * x pn^ .... r
BurkiMshftw K. Nicoll, (1878), 3 A r' inrvi'

^^'^^^' l^*'^^" = i A,* i. 883- '::

Jur. 827 .. "■ '^ " • "« i 17 L. J. Ex. 190 • ii

;"T^S'rii'^«^^a^i,^^,.i,,;i^^

"^ ^^'hm ^- '^^ ^^ = ^^ ^. j: k: £

^WT.-C.'^^i ^- '""»""■'■' H'«»-y B„„M (1870), .3«

220 ; 34 W. R. .372 ^'^ ' "" ^- •'■ Ch- 407 ; 64 L. f

Bushellji. Hammond, riSKMlPK- t>'b/.<. - •■ .. 271

Itatro,.,. WI,ite(1876),lQ.B D 421 J-T ,•■ •■ 76

L. T. 835 ; 24 W. R. 721 " ' ^^•' ' '*'' L. J. g. n. (i42 ; 34

iiitclier B. Henderson (18«8) I n 'q n n' , ■•

, l:i!l ; 18 W. R. 855 Tb * s ii-?' "• "^^ ■' '^^ L- J- Q. B

!"^e!'.Grind,Il(l78n),lT R\|>^'y„V. ■■ •• 7M

, ^^305; 75 L. ,r. Ch 541 M L f -OK "n''?"'^-'["'<*«J A.C.

[1«10] A C 381 78 T I n*i:'"'"yC''- U»<W1 1 Ch 37 '.

iixlon u. N. E. Rv Co ClSRaC T n .. ,•■

— '■■ Rust 1872), L R 7 Kr 1 o~„ ' ?.■ '^' *'• ^24

I- T. 602\ 27 L. T. 2io ."^ ^V t? '.^ V,\/- ^''^ '• J?3 ; -'«■=
twiey „. Prevost (18(i8) L R 6 C P !?^' ^ '" ■• •
™«£i;>.(1888);20y.B.D.1no'^-"' - •• ■•

702,

xxvii

PAr.B

42

496

376

411
U

414
740

184

523
194
109

385

624

437

91
.300

518

i, 77
643

7.');i

247

627

720

313
212
703

(J

Uef- Marks (1882), 52 L I CK in- ^^ , n.

TABLE OF CASKS.

»84
360

585

850, 6A1
11)2

717

117
52

21(1

Ciilder».Bull(1872), 3Dall«.3W . .. .. ••

... Halket (1840), 3 Moo. P. C. 2« i »? K- R- 1 • ■ •.•

and Hebble N»v. Co. v. Pilling (1845). . i »'• * ^.J, ' 'ii,''

niv (a. 736- 14 L.J. Ex. 223; 9 Jnr. :177 ! H9R.R.880
CaW™';. Kxeir(i877), 2 C. P. D. m ; 4« L. J. C. 1>. 541 , 3.1

L. T. 4B9 ; 25 W. B. 773 «"

CaWwoU r. Bethell, [m31 1 K. B. 119 .. .. ■• ••

Caledonian Ry. Co. ». N. lirit. Ry. Co. (1881), 8 App. taa. 114 ;

?. mlk;?Vr";tee. (1^2), 7 App-C^k m]'m u't. 82«;

341- flOL T. 6»8; 37 W. B. 2ii«

Calthorpo ... Tronchniann, [1906] A. C. 24 ; 75 L. .1. Cll. 92 ; 94

Cambridge Unions. Parr (18fll), IOC. B. N.'s. !»i ; W L. J.M.C.

041 . .. ., .. .. ■. ••

C«,neron V. Cameron (18:U), 2 M. & K 289 ; 4 I, ,1. CI. 28
Caminada ... Hulton (1891), tW h. .1. M. C. lift ■, h4 I.. T. 6,2 ■,

39 \V R. 540 ; 55 J. P. 727

Canipbell, Kx p. (1871), h. R. 5 Ch. 70:1; 23 L. T. 289 ; 18

w n. io5ii '■'•'

.,.■ I,n Thurn (1876), 1 C. V. D. 2(i7 ; 45 L. J. C. P. 482 ; 35

L. T. 265 ; 24 W. R. 675 .. .. ■• ,;•„•• !•'«
... Strangcway. (1877), 3 C. P. D. lOo ; 4, L. J. M. t. (> ;

37L. T. 672 ,„ ■• , „•• ^. •■ •■'10

Canada Shipping Co. ... Britiah .Sliipownors' Mutual Pn.tection

focioty(1889), 58L.J. Q. B. 462 124,517

Camula Sugar Reflninr Co. v. Reg., [1898] A. C. 735 ; C7

L. J. P. C. 126 ; 79 L. T. J46 40

Canadian Pac. Ry. ... Parke, [1899] A. C. 5:15 ; 88 L. .T. P. C. 89 ;

81 L. T. 127 ; 48 W. R. 118 OliO

V. Boy, [18021 A. C. 220 i 71 L. J. P. C. 61 ; 86 L. T. 127 ;

50W.B.415 »28,6:«

Candy v. Maugham (1844), 8 M. A (ir. 710 ; 1 D. & L. 745 ; 7

Scott N. R.401 ; 13 L. J.C. P. 17 ; 7 .lur. 1040 .. .. 2iMl

Cannan ... Abingdon, [1900] 2 0- B. 66 1 69 L. .1. Q. B. 517 ; 82

L. T. 382 ; 382 ; 48 W. R. 470 ; 64 .J. P. 604

Canterbury's (Archhp.l Ca«e (1596), 2 Rep. 46b

Capel . . Child (18.32), 2 Cr. A .1. 558 ; 1 L. J. Ex. 205 ; 2 Tyr.

689; 37R. R. 701

Capson ... Capson (1874), 43 L. .1. Ch. 877

Cargo fi Argos (1873), L. R. 5 P. C. l;t4

Carl Johann, The (1821), cited 1 H«gg. .\dra. 113
Carlton Illustrators ... Coleman, [1911 J 1 K. B. 771 ; 80 L. .1

.510; 104L. T. 413

Carnmnia, The (1916). 32 T. L. U. 395

CarpuBt.. Lond. and Bright. Bv. Co. (1844), 5 <J.B. 747 ; D. * M.

mm ; 3 Bly. Cas. 692; 13'L. .1. g. B. l:!;! ; 8 ,Iur. 464 ; 'Ml

R. R.9II 414

.i95
601

642

.. :W4

.. 244
.. 276
K.B.
708, 71"
.. 102

TABLE OK CASES.

xxix

I'AOK

201

ao4

204

—T^l' ^.^^f^JP ''m ''■ •'■ *^- »• '" ' i^ L. t:
c«...ii „ Worth a^\' s^,* •^•"- « : 3B R. ii 680" •• "^*

yy- K. 202 : 85 .1 p .MO . .. „ • y- " ; W L. T.

1I»

454
IttU

Ming V. Kine (1877), 8 Ch 1i «?; ^. V *"' ^''""t- 2

ia.l»ick „. Ball (i^),Jvf ^= 2" W. I{. jl .. "" ^'^^ ■ *"

-v P T. :; ■ : ■ '" ''• •'■ *^- «■ 3««i r;2

67. ;"S5'L':'^i5T1S?vi"?^J'^K- "• «? r74 L. J. K If '^'^

'teii&cftfw*^^ :: •• ■■ ^^.^

11 W. H. 472^' „ ■•* • " ■'"■■• -"<• «■ 1001 ts L.T tia:
i.s. " ■■ •• •• .. ..' '

39

.. 2U3

238,240,fKi(i

009

».• L. T.

.. 014

-. an

405
70

012

120

120

54

010

414

172

SXX TABLI or CASEa.

tAOt

ChunberUine ti. Choator ud ' Birkenhud By. Co. (1848), 1 Ex.

370; 18 L. J. Ex. 494 .. 716,718,723

Chamben v. Oroen (1876), L. R. 20 Eii. 562 ; 44 L J. Ch. 800 237
V. MHiichoitor By. Co. (1804), 5 B. & S. 688; 33 L. J. Q. B.

268 ; 10 Jur. N. 8. 700 623,655

Chunpiun v. Plummiir (1803), 1 N. IL 262 ; 6 Etp. 240 ; 8 B. R.

796 613

Chance v. AdsiiM (1696), 1 Ld. Baym. 77 .. ■. ■•„.•• ?*
Chapman v. Chapman (1877), 4 Ch. D. 800 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 104 . . 690
r„. MUvain (1830), 6 Ex. 81 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 228 ; 1 L. M. &

P. 809 ; 82 B. R. 664 294

V. Robinson (1868), 1 E. & B. 23 ; 28 L. J. M. 0. 30 ; S

Jnr. N. S. 434 344

V. Shepherd (1867), L. K. 2 0. P. 228 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 113 j

IF i. T. 477 ; 15 W. R. 314 20:1

Chappell V. North, [18»1] 2 Q. B. 252; tlO L. J. CJ. B. 554 ; Co

X. T. 23; 40VV. R. 18 4«

V. Purday (1S43), 12 M. & W. 303; 1 D. & L. 458 ; 13

L.J. Ex. 7; 67 R. R. 367 •19«

CharlM ». BUckweU (1877), 2 C. P. D. 151 ; 46 L. J. C. P. 368 ;

,16 L. T. 195 ; 25 W. B. 472 1:15

Charlewood v. Bedford (Duke) (1738), 1 Atk. 497 .. .. 513

CliarlotU, The (1810), 1 Doda. 387 1!M

Charlton v. Hay (1875), 31 L. T. 4;17 ; 23 W. B. 129 . . .. 717
Cbnrrington v. Meatheringlmra (1837), 2 M. ■& W, 228 ; 6 L. J.

Ex.23 72!i

Charter v. Charter (1874), L. B. 7 H. L. 361 ; 43 L. J. P. & M.

73 43

Chartered Bank of India v. Netherland 8. U. Co. (18ai), 10

Q. B. D. 521 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. 220 ; 48 L. T. 546 ; 31 W. R.

443 ; 47 J. P. 260 277, 3«tj

Chartered Mete. Bank v. Wilaon (1878), 3 Ex. D. 106 ; 47

L. J. Ex. 163 ; 38 L. T. 234 ; 26 W. B. 265 .. 577,578

Chaateauneuf v. Capeyron (1882), 7 Ann. Caa. J27 ; 51 L. J. P. C.

37 ; 46 L. T. 65 ; 4 Aap. M. C. 489 (ij.t

Chatterton v. Cave (1877), 2 C. P. D. 42; 4C L. J. C. P. 97; .15

L. T. 587; 25W.R.102; & 3 App. Caa. 483 ; 47 L.J.a P.

645 ; 38 L. T. 397 ; 26 W. R. 498 ;150

O.Parker (1914), 78 J. P. 339 4il7

Chell D. Hall (1896), 12 T. L. R. 408 704

Chelsea Vestry v. King (1805), 17 C. B. N. H. 025 ; ;»4 L. J. M. C.

9 ; 10 Jur. 1150 ; 11 L. T. 419 ; 13 W. B. 157 .. . . 47.-.
Waterworks v. Bowley (1851), 17 Q. B. 358; 20 L. J.M. C.

520; 85B.B.482 Did

Chei.-y'sEstato, i(«(1862), 31 L. .1. Ch. 351 25

" Chic" Ltd, Be, [Vm:,] 2 Ch. 345 ; 74 L. J. Ch. 507 ; 93 L. T.

301 ; 53 W. R. 659 392

Chick V. Smith (1840), 8 D. P. C. .337 ; 4 Jur. 86 .. .. UIO

Child V. Hearn (1874), L. R. 9 Ex. 176 ; 43 L. .1. Ex. 100; 22

W. R. 8B4 0U3

TABLE or CABEa.

xxxi

1S5

82(1
Oil)

477

■ (U4
21H

18M
4VJ

inn
in«

;!'ia>" Insurance Co ■r„„ r

170

aw

138

*» . 2 Mo„re 4ni ; ^ j^ jV

12ri
70n

xxxii TABLE OV CASKS.

VW .. Mol,i.cux (1877), a g. H. B; l»f,-. «,,V- J- «• "■ '^^ 415
;i; U T. (IM : -M W. U. 104 1 U Oox C. C. W .. .. «»»
;. B. (IUBS), 14 g. B. D. 1« ; B4 L. J. M. t. «t ; 52 L. T.

i3«:.i:iw. R. 22«i4nj. I'a4« ^ •• „••»„. ai "*

,. W,lloml (ISKl), B2 L. J. Q. B. 321 ; 4» L. T. 702 , 31

W. R. 651 ; 47 J. P. B51 •• •• ., ,■ , ,;• „ ;•.

Cl«k. ». Bmdlaugh a8«l). » Q. B. D. 63, M L. .1. Q. B. 1 ,

46L. T.49j30W. K.Mi48J. P.«H .. •• •• »*"

^^°. Crowde; (1869), I-. B. 4 C. P. 638 , 38 U J. M. C. 118 ; ^^^

—"Ji^l W. «>.. 262, 2i" L. j;V:x. 67 ■ 17 Jur. 23^' 2»«,

,. P„w«ll (1833). 4 B. & Ad. 846; 1 N. & M. 492 i 2 ^

_Vk^h^(W77);3 Q.B. D. 170, 47 L. J. 1. B.i47 , 37^

L.T. 633,26W.B.112 ^'^ S»l

CUy..K.y(18»4)17C.BN8 188 .. .. •• •• «W

fUydon f. Green (1868), L. R. 3 C. P. Oil i 37 L. J. C. P. 226 i
^8L.T.607ilUW.K.1126 74,76

Sr"''^^ «» tvtyfri«ll«:B.D»^; 65i: J.Q:B.339',

44 W R 606 '*

Clelland ». Kor (1843), 6 Ir. Eq. Rep. :» ; affirmed 0 Ir. Eq. R«p.

288 Ir ■• •• ■■ "

ClementKin «. M«.on (187.'.). L. R. 10 C. P. 217 , 44 L. J. C. P.

171 , 32 L. T. 325 ; 23 W. R. 620 .. .. .. •■ S2

Clerke v. St. HoUii'ii Cori>onitiun (1916), 86 L. J. K. B. 17,

(J A

Clerkenwdl Vmtry v. Feary (1890), 24 Q. B, D. 703 , 69

L. .1. M. C. 82t 62 L. T. 697 : 54 J. F. 676 »41

Clifford V. Watt. (1870), L. R. 5 C. P. 577 , 40 L. J. C. P. .16 ,

22 L. T. 717 , 18 W. R. 925 ^'*

Climpiwn V. Cole. (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 465 ; 58 L. .7. Q. B. 346 ;

61 L. T. 116 , .18 W. R. 110 '"'

Cliiipena OU Co. ». Edinburgh Hater TrUBteei, [1904] A. C. 04 ,

73 L. .1. P. C. 32 , 89 L. T. 689 '•j'

Cli.|u,it« Champatjne (1885), 3 Wallace 114 «••■'

Cluiu) i;. R. (1854), 8 Moo. P. C. 484, P. C «

Cloll.ier V. Webster (1862), 12 C. B. N. S. 750, 31 L. J. C. P.

216 , 10 V'. R. 624 173, 6JU

Clow V. Harper (1878), 3 El. D. 198 , 47 L. J. Ex. 393 , 38 L. T.

269 , 26 W. R. 364 "*

Clowe. V. Staff.jrdhhire Potteries (1872), L. R. 8 Ch. 126; 42

L. J. Ch. 107 , 27 L. T. 621 , 21 W. H. 32 52W

Clyde Navigation v. Barclay (1877), 1 App. Cas. 790 .. •• "I?
— - V. Lainl (1883), 8 App. Cas. 658 .. .. 131, 538, 539, o40

Coallieavers' Case (1768), 1 Leach 66 ""'

Coataworth 1-. Johnson (1886), 55 L. J. (i. B. 220 .. .- "69

TABLK or fAKIW,

xxxiii

« L. ,r. a.nk. «.i ; 2,

■•M8i.i.-.i;;.j.g.B.

Jar. 1U6 .. ^"^^' ' *^'- * Bl- «l«i 22 L. Jo. „ i^,, . ;•

— ". Mitchell (1890) obT,' S' i J^- <«» . . ' **

» Jur. 1090 ; 88 R. r"^/ «• »• 3J0 ; 16 I, j y ^ ••

j.,%\^:U'«»). I- "•.oc.,v,^^--^j^.. «.7

" t'. Worth n^r<', ..■ * *"'!• lli<> ..

P4r,|

228
MO

7;i«

431)

7m

212

2Hn

•(ST)

2:i2

10
<>12

22.->
47

«n3
»n>

22»
r24
248
333

, «71
1H2
225

^.MJi!, •■ •• ■■° "^'^ ' ">• * Scutt MO; 51

;; R- (l«39i.l1,: f ,^; J^^'l^^l; If. »2'- .' • -'

'""'■• .. .. "'"''• J- tx. 270 :; D r p

154
.■)12
2o;i

4MI
208

ro3

«»)

Oil
714

xxxiv

TABLE ft CA8EN.

cm. «. Cnicr(IHII«),7HL. T. Ilia •• •• ««1

CoUiinii ». Mil!«, [\m] I y. II- :«»! : '»! '- •'• 'I •>■ "'* i W

L. T. iVnliill .1. IMilU: IHC. f. C 4HI I(f7

0. llcilnTU, [IWNll 1 I). II. 45; li."> I. .1. M. ('. mi; 74

UT. lllMi44W.K.44.1; l»f. I.<'.a7;l:ii".l. IMM .. !!»

('..line. Il.mio.m.lC.ili.iiii.lHruw^[ll««]A. C. 1"» .. .. 17
• ■■ilciiiiil ll»nk .-. Wliiimoy (IHWl), II A|i|i. Cm. 4*1 i Wl Cli. I>,
•.111 : m I.. .1. C'li. « i M I,. T. Mi ; M W. U. 70S ! .'I
M. II. U. au7 ""• '''^•'

of Aiutrnlii. !■. Williii (1H74), L. H. 8 P. C. 417 i 43

I,. J. I'.c. :mF. »' •• •■ '.i:'"

Cnlcnili.iuii >: llnwiki. (1HH7), 14 Apii. On. 41i:t ; 4« L. J. y. II.

Ml 111 I,. T. 518 2711

.•. H.'.ia.m (1K!«I). '■!■> <J- II- !>■ l-'l 1 ■'» ^- •'• 'i- '•• ■•"■■> 1

iw I.. T. H.-!.-! : :w w. u r.4.1 aHH, '.>7i

('■.Itiiiiiii, /u r^ (IHnn. II) rh. 1). (14 ; ."il L. .1. Ch. .'I ; 43 L. T.

:i!L' ; :i(i w. K, :t42 IM

Culvili >•. Wiml ilH4(i). lit'. II. N. H -10; I Lut. Hi% Cm.

4«;); iri L .1. C. 1'. H«); lO.dir. IKliI; <mU. 11. 47;i 71

Culvin .-. lliaklo (1H41). 8 M. A \V. tlWI ; 11 L. .1. Kx. Xi ; f.«

U. U. KI4 1-'

CilvLT, ife(lH«l). •''"L.'I- Ch. 7'.i; 4:1 li. T. 454 .. .. W-.'

CiMiilH' I. I'ift(17li3), :llliirr. 14:l4 Illci

( omiiiiiLi r. Scott (IH7.".), I~ It. ai K.|. 11 ! 44 L. .1. CIi. 8«l j It'

L. T. 4*1 ; al W. K. 4'JH r.l'», ,-.ii

CitiiniiiHtMnur for Htariip DiitiuH >; Ityi'tiui, [IIHIJ A. C. IlWt; 8(1

L.J.r.C. 114 ; KM L. T. .".!.■. L'l«

of Police r. Cnrtniaii, O*"'] 1 V- "• "■"''• ! "•"> I* •!■ M- C.

ll:l 187

Ctiiiimifuiioiicn of Motropf>IitAn Police v. Hanciick, [Illllt] 1 K. I).

UK) ni'4

of Public Wnrku i'. L.^"". [IfXXl] A. C. 33."! ; 72 L. .1. P. C.

1)1 ; 88 L. T. 77!) SOI, iWi

of Triule, *c. ». Bell (1!)()2\ 71 L. J. P. C. lOU .. .. 184

Coiiijianhin «le M4»cantl)i<iiio i'. llritiah 8outh Africa Co., [181)2]

•Hi. II. ;iri8 7

Coiioi. Howle«(l(l!IO). 1 Salk. 203 old

Coniinii. Rt (1888), 20 Q. B. 1). (11)0 ; 37 L. J. Q. B. 472 ; oil

L. T. 281 ; 3 M. II. K. 8<,l (lH.-i

Coniital.Ior. f*oniitalilo(187!)). 48L. .1. Ch.«21 .'IMl

Constandiio e. (\m«tantiiio (1801), (J Vcs. KK) 281

Conatitution, Tlio {18711), 4 P. D. .■|9 : 48 L. .7. P. D. & A. l:i ;

40 L. T. 21!) ; 27 W. K. 7:W 211.1

Continental Tyre ami Rublier Co. i: Heath (1013), 21) T. L. K.

308 7112

Conybearo ,-. L. Soh.ml liil , [18!)!] 1 Q. B. 118; fill L. J. Q. B.

44 ; la L. T. (151 ; .'1!) \V. U. 288 ; 35 .1. P. 151 ; 17 Cox C. C.

191 2(11

Cook r. I/ovelani! (17f)l)), 2 Bos. & V. 31 ; 5 U. II. 533 .. .. (ll."i

TABtB or fJAglB.

XXXV

t*«iOI||bor r. nnrLl I. /.'

i^i;^!irV".il^^.^t..l/:?^'}:'^;'""':>7

'.!: 2 Ci.
I'lU

« i- T/cSrrirs.^?

112

» I- ./."k.

•■'•■' i 'w . J. K'aV'irV,'^;"- 113; Hit
» #• li ». .. *r''' * li. (I. It. jt'iM

AIM
W

m

UK!

— "• jiuiiimck (iHfij) '|.; ,V If ;;.• j'-if''; 1 1-. (I. It aa" • "" „

». Hiriiiiiiinii i l)uw\ » i7 ^' '"

•'"r. N.S.I in

.11. N. s.

*' I' T. Ill ; PH ^V ,, ^•jjif l-'l. U. U(l| ; 4(1 L _,

mil,

If,ii'^^^'^".i*K,;

■«»»* Mining Co. » 8,.,.k>^

-*« L. T. 8«i , «i ';.. ■„"• i>

• »« i ai L J.
,'lin«(18ftl), ,44 1.

■• .^ih,

i 27 L. J. CI,.

:rfi»i.«;:^'-^

«• H. Ml ; 11,, li' ^^

180 ; .13
t-'h. 752 'j
M. a 27 ; ii

8. m "

M. f. i;i7';

."^j"; 4 Jur

m

U41

7(18

;m

92
(Ktl

*>»'. 14lV;«r"V\':-Al''''«.64;

I- J. Kx.

Kl; 2

17: 17.7i,r/or*^.<l ?.%

;f-''<5j 77 K. j{

MO

.1 Ex. «4i" ,

M. .V G.iii4:

« lily. Cm.
Ibnii'.

! h. J.

«87
(154

:::i;!^^l:=S!fe.^-.-^=:«5-^-'^.a ""^

lIM, IW

0.:il7V^J;»).5C.,..D.S;;42;

I'. 46;i "

T. 1S5 ; 2« w

It.

1- T. uU

^w:v^>^-«-^='2M»Lj.-w

";■■ French (1799, "4 y ^
T.5S«/^'^':{J«;/Q.B.I35,41I,../.M.

r4 ; 42

C. lit ; 25

448

357
218

l.)7

XXXVl TABLE OF CASES.

Cork and Bindon Ry. Co. i'. Goode (1853), l;i C. li. 827 ; 22
L. J. C. P. 1»8 ; 17 Jur. mn ; (Kf B. R. (iW

and Yoaghal Ry. Co., Bf (186«), L, R. 4 Ch. 748 ■, 39 L. .F.

Dh. 277 ; 21 L. T. 7:i8 «o5,

Cornell r. Hay (1873), I,. 11. 8 C. P. 328 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 138 ;

28 L. T. 475 ; 21 W. R. 580

C.irnill r. Hudson (1857), 8 E. A B. 4211 ; 27 L. .1. Q. B. 8 ; 3

Jur. N.S. 1257; 112 R. R.B:t« am,

Cornish i: Ho.^king (1853), 1 E. * B. (a)2 ; 2? L. J. Q. B. 142 ;

n.Iur. l(:i!(; !)3R. R. 304

Cornwall Miniii)t Co. i: Bennett (1800), 5 H. & N. 432; 20 L. J.

Ex. 157 ; li .lur. N. S. 53ft

C.)rti» ,■. Kent Waterworks (1827), 7 B. AC. 314 .. 143,

Cory r. France, [1011] 1 K. B. 114 ; 80 L. .1. K. B. 34« ; 103

L. T. ti4»; 11 .\sii. M. (.'. 4»it 149, :«ft,

Coata Rica v. Erlanger (1874), 3 Ch. D. (>2 ; 45 L. .1. Ch. 743 ;

:i5 L. T. lit ; 24 W. R. 955

CosUr i>. Hotherington (1859), 28 L. J. M. C. 108

Cother f. Merrick (lfio7), Hard 94

Cotton )■. .lames (1830), Moo. & Mai. 273 ; 3 C. & P. .-|05 , S

L. ,T. K. B. 345 ; .15 U. I!. 244

V. Vogan, [189<i] A. 0, 4.57 ; 05 1.. .1. Q. B. 48(i ..

Couch V. .Steel (1854), 3 K. ,1: 11. 402 ; 2 C. L. R. 940; 23
h. J.Q. B. 121 ; 18 .lur. 515 ; 117 R. R. 555 .. 709, 715, 717,

720,
Coulhcrt r. Troko (1875), 1 y. li. D. 1 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 7 : 33

L. T. 340; 24 W. R. 41

County Thmtres r. Knowlos, 11K12] 1 K B. 480 ; 71 L. .1. K. B.

361 ; 86 L. T. 132

Courier, The (1891), til L. J. P. U ••

Courtauld r. Legh (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 130 ; ;« L. .T. Ex. 15 ;

19 L. T. 737 ; 17 W. R. 4li» .-,.-,ii

Courteen's Case (1618), Hob. 270 ; 1 Hale P. C. ,J42 .. .. Ill
Coverdale t>. Cliarlton (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 104 ; 48 li. J. Q. B.

128 ; 40 L. T. 88 : 27 VV. R. 257 .W, 170, .-.4.-|

Cowon, £x p. (1807), L. R. 2 Ch. 503 ; 30 L. J. Bank. 41 ;

16 L. T. 469 ; 15 W. R. 8.59 227

II. Kingston-upon-Hull, [1897] 1 Q. H. 273 ; «« L. J. Q. li.

185; 75L.T. 593; 45W. R. 413; Bl.l. P. :«0 ,. ,. .■,;:

Cowley ,'. Eyas (1877), 5 Ch. D. 944 ; 37 L. T. 238 ; 20 \V. R 1 I'lU

• V. Newmarket Luc. Bd., [18921 A. C. Ma ; 62 L. J. (J B.

05 ; 67 L. T. 486 ; .56 ,T. P. 805, H. L 7211

Cowper-Essex r. Acton (1889'), 14 App. Cas. 153 ; 58 L. .1. Q. B.

594; ML. T.l; .'taw. R. 209; 53 J. P. 756, H. L. .. 17i

Cox, £x- p. (1887), 50 L. J. Q. B. 532 -Xl

V. Ambrose (18'K)), 00 L. .1. Q. B. 114 ; 55 J. P. 23 .. 41NI

V. Cannon (1838), 4 Ring. N. V. 453 ; 7 L. J. C. V. 288 .. 08.5

V. Hakes (1890), 15 App. Cas. 500 ; 00 L. J. Q. B. 89 j 63

L. T. 392 ; 39 W. R. 145 ; 54 J. P. 820 .. 4, 49, 110, 16(1
I-. Hill (1892), 07 L. T. 20 .. .. 200

FAOK

583

090

204

561

401

054
29:1

■too

61 IK
282

107
riK,

411
0117

TABLE OF CASES.

trako !,. Powell rik™ o .. •■ = '^l I-- T.

■*^Jtvii

5;i2

a
iffi

«28

4<);)

.•190

franc „. Lawrence (mM^ o-' •■ ^' "' '*^ ! "3

ra"% !■. Philips Hi BiTi.;V""- I •<-'■ 1

,;0; 13Ma;,.?^f4rJ2Ch.327, 73 L. J. c,.: «fl2 /„,, L r
-'■ Churchill (f7'947^;R-7f 7 .. "'• "^^ I*- 112: 1

L. ,,.Q. n.4fi«,,:,-,

•'•J"; 4j) R. i^_

10]

428
, 475
512
200
139
378

57:;

271

414
582

692

2;«
ai7

299
214
173

TABLE OF CASES.

Crooko'a C»8o (Iti'.U), Show aw 245

Orusa iic; & J). I'Hyin!(187il)> 11 Ch.D. run, C. A «

t>. Wn.ta (!»(»), 13 0. B. N. S. 2:)!l ; 32 Ti. .1. C. P. 73 ; 9

Jur. N. K. 778; 7. L. T. 4«;l; 11 W. K. 210 221

CroywliUu V. Sunbury, «Vc. l^rbiui Council (18118), 67 L. J. Ch,

38,-. 364

Crumhieti.Wallscn.l Loc. Ii.l.,ri8ni] 1 q. H. oftt; W L..J. Q. B.

3i)2 ; fit L. T. 4!)ll ; nr. ,1. 1'. 421 (ill

Cuckfield Board, lie (1854), 19 Hmv. 133 ; 24 L. J. t'h. 586 ;

11)5 R. R. 1(14 ; 245, 321, 323

Cull V. Austin (1872), L. K. 7 C. P. 234 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 1B3;

2(1 L. T. 767 ; 20 W. R. mt ; 1 Hoji. * C. 741 .. ., 4

Cullon 1'. Trimlilo (1872), h. R. 7 Q. B. 41B ; 41 L. J. M. 0.

132 ; 2li L. T. Ii!)l ; 20 \V. a. (>91 242,623

Cullurnii V. LonJi.n BUI,,'. .Socy. (18iW), 25 y. B. D. 485 ; 59

L. J. y. II. 323 ; 39 W. R. 88 ; «f L. T. 511 .. .. 554

Culverson c. Moltoii (1840), 12 A. & K. 753 ; 2 M. & Rob. 200 ;

4 P. & D. 445; 4,)ur. IKW 22

Cumburland v. L'oi)eland (1862), 1 H. & C. 194; 31 L. J. Ex.

353 ; 9 .Tur. N. S. 253 T 7 L. T. ;).i4 291,311

Cumins; "• Toms, or .Jouea (1844), 7 M. & Or. 29, 288 ; 8 Scott
N. R. 827 i 1 liUt. Reg. Cas. 151 ; 8 .Jur. 1052 ; 14 L. J. C. P.

54; ti6K. R. (iS;! J

Cunard v. Hyde (1838), E. B. * E. 670; 27 L. J. Q. K. 408; 5

Jur. N. S. 40 ; 113)11. R. 824 (i9J

«. (1858), 2. E. A. E. 1 ; 29 L. .1. Q. B. 6 ; 6 Jur. N. S.14 6114

Cundell v. Diiwsoa (1847), 4 V. B. 370 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 311 ; 72

It R. 621 696,701

Cundy v. he Cocci (1884), 13 (J. B. D. 210 ; .')2 L. J. M. C. 125 ;

51 L. T. 265 ; 32 W. U. 769 ; 48 .1. P. 599 .. 125, 179, 181 186

Curetoni/. R. (1861), ;)0 T,. J. M. C. 149 241

Curlewia v. Mominjrton (1857), 7 E. A B. 283 ; 26 L. .7. Q. B. 181 •
3 Jur. N. S. 600 ; & 27 L. J. Q. B. 2(i9 ; 4 Jur. N. S, 5:15 ;

llOE. H. 594 434,f>31

Curry D. Edensor (1790), 3 T. R. 524 go?

Curtis V. Kmbery (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. .309 ; 42 L. J. M. C. 39 ;

21\V.R. 143 me

ti. Mundy, [1892] 2 Q. B. 178 ; 40 W. R. 317 .. .. 166

V. .Stovin (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 513 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 174 ; 60

L. T. 772 ; 37 W. H. 313 411,419

Cusack V. L. & N. W. Ry., [1891] 1 Q, B. 347 ; 60 L. J. Q. B.

208 ; 04 L. T. 43 ; 39 W. R. 244 ; 55 J. P. 341
Cushing V. Dupuy (1880), 5 App. Cas. 409; 49 Ij. J. P. C. 03 :

42L. T. 445

Custodes II. Ginkes (16.51), Styles 283

Cybele, The (1878), 3 P. D. 8; 47 L. J. P. I). & A.80 ; 37 L. T.

773 ; 26 W. R. :i45

Czech V. Gen. St. Nav. Co. (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 14- 37
L. J. C. P. 3 ; 17 L. T. 248 ; 16 W. R. 130 .. .. 367,.'i68

076

1.54

112

Ilaglish, Hj: „
2» L. T. h

Diikma V. ISeaii
Jur. 78,3 ;

Dales Case (j
I-J. Q.B.

D'Allax V. Jont
UAlmaino v n

„ "R. R.j;;

Daiiiodhar v. D(
Dauby v. Wat«i
DaiiitI V. Janes
Daniels v. Trofm
Darmcbrog, The
, •ilL.T. 75f
I) Arcy V. Taniar
^ ■■fr;4H..t,
Uaijjan r. Davie
35L.T.810
Darlaston Imc. Be

I- ■'., y. B.

(-anal Cas. 21(
Datlcy Main Colli

™ L J. Q. B

»47 ■

Dirlington Wayon

L- J. Q. B IK
Dart, The, [189;ji j

n. " '»'■ R- 1.53

™J •■. Un Kleek (
DMhwood t. Ma.-ni

r^ IT- 811 .;
"avenport v. R. fjo;
n I''r.727 ..

™d''Ackland, i?,

t°," 'i,B"™«"d
„ .9 L- T. 782 ; 1!
»nJj«on V. Hill, n>

,1T.]18;49-\V
B»'«r. Berwick (L,

M i 7 Jur. N. S
"~ ''■ Fitton (1842)
— '■. Garla,„i (1876'

I- r. 727; 24 W.J

TABLE OP CASES.

XXXIX

D.

'"glisli, Hj: „ ,,„>.,

;'>'r. 783; («) (j i, -A"

41 R. R. wr^ "«^»>. I V„. A c. im ; 4 jj.-,, E, V p," f'«
imndhnrn r> ::^^ ■■ .. "■■••c\.i^i.2l-

350

617

■JO

Ifir, l!l.i

■ ais, p. c.

380
'Mil

4m\

'47rR:.";r^(" -..™

nston Wagon Co „ Vr .^- •• •■ }»'.'•

The, [189;!] I./af. '"V *«' •■ ■■«' "■■ if. Ifi7 -*" • •'"

T. 811 .r'""' ''^'•IJ J Ch. »«; ; „„ L. j- p. • ■ , 38.i, 401
P"" ". R. fisrri" Q 1 "■ , •• .. 800; Oil

T 727"?''".^ 3 App, Caa. ,,5. ^» j, ■ ^ ■■ .. 41

"■yUiout.. Coventr„tr • • •• ' .'.l'

L- T. 782 ; 17' V' l^' ^2 '■ * t'. P. 117 ; .% L. j c' p .:, • 1-
"in K. Hill ri'ion o L- "^ •■ '•"■>'• 1 . <J;

3»rlan> (187«) I o l^S'- 225 ; »0 R R^,-. " " '"'85

'■ '27 ; 2*4 yiVSi"": ""■ !^ ■■ ■^ f'- A^. 1.37 ; ii '^^

.. 27

11(1
145

877

275

xl

TABLE OF CASES.

Davies V. (irifflthii (1837), 4 M. & VV. .■177 ; 8 L. ,1. Ex. 70 ; 7

D.P.c.2<M ai;i

V. Harvey (1874), L R. 9 Q. B. 43,1 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 121 :

:«) L. T. «29 ; 22 W. It. 7:)3 ;W7 4fl6

V. Miikuim (1885), 211 I'll. D. f.Wi ; 64 L. J. Ch. 114S; 53

L. T. 314 ; 33 W. E. 6(»i ; 50 .1. P. B

V. (lees (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 408; 55 L. J. Q. B. 3«;i ; 54

L. T. 813i 34 W. R. 673

Dsvin, fie y. (1872). h. R. 7 Ch. 52B ; 41 L. J. Bank, (ill: 27

L. T. 63 ; 20 W. R. 791 ;,■)•(

». Bryan (1827), « B. & C, 851 ; 30 R. R. 491 .. . j^s

V. Comitti (1886), 54 L. J. Ch. 411) ; 62 L. T. 5.19 .. i:ji

V. Curling (1848), 8 Q. B. 288 ; 15 L. .1. Q. B. B« j 10 Jiir 89 l.M

t>. Cuny, [1918] 1 K. B. 109 ,17

w. Hardficro (18^0), 2 Camp. .175 ''(K)

II. Harris, [1900] 1 Q. B. 729; 89 L. .J, Q. B. 232 ; HI L T

780; 48 W. R. 445; 84 ). P. i:«i

• V. Jcan« (1904), 41 So. L. R. 428, Sc

V. Marlborough (Duko) (1819), 1 Swan. 74 ; 63 R. R. 29

V. Park (1873), h. R. 8 Ch. 882 n.; 42 L. J. Ch. 873 ■ 28

L. T. 296 ; 21 W. R. 301

V. Strathmore (1810), 18 Vos. 419; 90 R. R. 848 . .

V. Taff Valo Ry„ £181)51 A. C. 542 ; 84 L. J. Q. B. 488 ; 72

L. T. 632; 44W. R. 172

». Troharno (1881), 8 .\nn. Ca». 483 ; 51) L. ,J. O. B. 885 ■ 29

W. R.889

Davison ti. Farmer (1861), 6 Ex. 252 ; 20 h. J. Ex. 177 ; 88 R R

. 268

Davys ». Douglas (1859), 4 H. & N. 180: 28 L. J. M.'c. Ivj-
llS R. R. 377

Daw V. L. C. C. (1890), 69 L. J. .M. C. 112 ; 62 L. T. 937 ; 64 J. P

.S02

V. Melrop. Board of Works (1882), 12 C. B. N. S 161 • lii

L.J. C.P.223 293,322,3211

Dawdy, Jle (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 426 ; .'14 L. J. g. B. 474 .846

Danes v. Painter (l674), Freeni. K. B. 176 4B5 477

V. Thomas, [1892] 1 Q. B. 414 ; 81 L. ,1. 6. B. 482 • 68 '

L. T. 461 ; 40 W. R. 306 ; 50 .1. P. 326 (joj

D«»son, Ex p. (1876), L. R. 19 En. 4:« ; 44 h. .1. Bank. 49 ■

.12 L. T. 101 ; 23 W. R. 354 .W> 4113

f. Fitzgerald (1878), 1 Ex. D. 2.->7 ; 46 L. .). Ex. 893 ; X?'

L. T. 220 ; 24 W. R. 773 ....

V. Meuli (1918), IB L. (1. II. 308

V. Midland Ry. Co. (1873), L. R. 8 Ex. 8 ; 42 L. J. Ex. 49 ■

21W. R. 66 I.),,

Day V. Brownrigg (1878), 10 Ch. D. 294 ; 48 L. J. Ch. 173 ; 39

L. T. 563 ; 27 W, R. 217 151

». Savndge (1614), Hob. 87 272 459 461

v. Simpson (1885), 18 C. B. N. ,S. 880 ; 34 ' . .1 M. C. 149 ■ '

U .Tur. N. S. 487; 12 L. T. :388; 13 \V. U. 748 2II,r.!Fl

1:10
474

287
466

574
423

267

D"*! "• Silliific

_ ^1'.143;

Dean v. Boimei

I-- T. 169 .

». Oreon (

»■ Mellard

10 Jur. N
Dean of fork's
De Beauvoir v '
Do Beers Mines
96 Ii. T. 22]
9eBegni»t,. An

3SI. &Seot
Dt Bode V. R /]

401 ; 61 \^.
Mi V. Deck asi

D«re, Re (1876)

IIB ; 23 W. 1

Deethurst, He (jg

BeUno, The, Ms

W. R. 66 '

De 1. Vega V. Via:
I)e LonJo', faae (

De .MilUis i>. Ben i
^ «\V,R.2S4'
Deiin ». Diamond |
— ?• R«id (18.'i«
Dennis v. Toveil (1
,, LT.482; 21
Jenny's Trustee v
ftimyv. Thwaitesi

L.T.828 ..
I*en' <•■ Allcroft (18
~~ *','"»}^n (188

"e%«. Bury Cora.
Ex. 100; 20 L.

2(13;26V.R.^'S
»«TOnp„rtC„rp„„ti,
B-vontoe (Duke) v.

__«ii'j.o.B:4j

„"' O'Connor (18

62L.T.917;b8

"""«"■ P-'ilden (

1 Lut. Rm;. C \

K R. 69u\. ■

TABLE OK CASUK.

1 » Diamond asasi ^ «■ r " -. ■'"'^'■OW);

L r^^fAVk'-,^; « y. B. 10 : i, L. J M c"«
y'»Tra,teor,D, „„./'/,' •■ .. ■*'■'-•«

; 27
8,176
112, 145
35

414
221

'• Clayton aSiV'-UT^r'*^ "' " "

70, 72

xU

223

52(i
2a)

41)8
271

mm
25a

4J

2«1

303
210

292

278
582

«93
504

7

um

zlU

TABLE OP CASES.

, Ponirtono Union (1880), 10

Dowsbury Waterworks BoMd

Do %^nL°..'^.on C.rp«™Uon (if »!.^« ^Y*!- Z o^-
Do Wolf V. LindMll (I8fi8), I'- R. u Eq. 20»; 37 L. J. Cli. 29J ,

Dowil^3;;il85i;; ^li'k-io I. JL c. I^ 26. fh ,.:

1159 ; 87 R. «■ 718 •; ,. •• n" rimVl w li'

Diamond Coal Cutter Co. v. Mining ApiiUancos to., [191 Jj W. JN.

340 •• ■• •* "■ ** " "

Diana,Tiio(1842),4Moo.P 0. 11.P.C. .. ■• .••

DiolTfle, [1891] 1 Ch. 428 ; 80 L. J. Ch. ,08 ; 84 L. T. 3!^, ..J

^^;B.d^rt(1883),"lO q'.B. D."387; 5 Asp."M. c:'49; «

Dickiils i. (!ili, I18IW] 2 Q. B. 310 ; 05 L. J. M. C. 187 ; 75 L. T.

;t2i 44W. ft.08«i 30.J. P. 488 .. ■. •• -

Dicki.^;.n, He (1882). 61 L. J. Ch. 730; 2U Ch. D. 315; 47 L. T.

-_l^B«rr.^;[?W^ 3 Ch. '^9 ; 73L. J. Ch. 7oi'; 91 L. T. l«i

„. Ead (1914), 78 J P. 326 .. .. •■ •■ ••

„ N E Rt. Co. (1804), 2 H. & C. 733 ; 3.i L. .1. tx. 91 ..

Dick.;.Brook7(188«). 15 Ch. D. 22 ; 49 L. J. Ch. 812,; 43 L. T.

"l OO W Tt fV7 -■ " "

Dick»n V. Neath and BroconRy. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Ex. 87 ; ;i8

L .T. Ex. 57 ; 19 li. T. 402; 17 W. R. 301

ni.wlo o HiiiiiS (1877), 40 L. .1. Ex. 721, C. A

tHE, L.mion ami ItLkwall Ry. Co. (1800), 5 Ex.442; (i Rly.

Ca«. 590 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 308 ; 14 .Jur. 937

Dinimock i>. Allenby (1811), cited 2 Marsh 582

Dingley ». Moor (lUOO), Clo. Eliz. 760 Viq-x'o , "

Direct U. S. Cable Co. ti. Anglo-Anier. Tel. Co. (187/), 2 Ap|..

Ca». .394 ; 46 L. J. P. C. VI ; 30 L. T. 205 . . . . »!,

Diss V. Aldrich (1877), 2 Q. II. D. 179 ; 40 L. J. M. C. 183 ; 30

L T (t^ '• " " "

Ditcher b. Deni's'on (1858), 11 Moo. P. C. 324 ; 117 R. R. .32,

p. C

Ditton's Case (1701), 2 Snlk. 490 .. .. .••„„•■,„.•;■;!''

DUon ti. Wells (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 249 ; 59 L. J. M. C. 110 ; 02

L. T. 812 ; 38 W. R. 000; 54 J. P. 725; 17 Cox C. C.

is «wi.

V. White (1883), 8 App. Cas. 8:i3

Dobbs S.Grand lanction Waterworks (188.3), 9 App. Cas. 49;

5:1 L. .1. Q. B. 60 ; 49 L. T. 541 ; 32 W. R. 432 ; 48 J. P. 5
Dobell V. Hutchinson (IKK), 3 A. * E. 355 ; 4 L. ,1. K. B. 201 ;

5 K. & M. 251 ; 1 H. & W. 394 1 42 B. U. 408
Dobson V. Festi, [1891] 2 Q. B. 92 ; 00 L. J. Q. B. 481 ; (.4

L. T. 551 ; :« W. R. 481

Dodd ». Dodd, [1906] P. 189

Dodds 1'. Shephenl (1870), 1 Ex. D. 75; 45 L. .F. Ex. 457 ; .'14

L. T. 368 ; 24 W, R. 322

529
302

392

.193
517

123

523

4Hi;

MX
4.-..-.
!«;!
lin,

24
l!l',l

Kit
Mi

.■<15
•")1"

nil

070

163

TABLE OF CASES.

xliii

;)18 )^'"'>- * B- * Aid. 401 i a„„. 220 ■ 2i n r

• "■ BiMHdling (1828-1 7 n t ;■ '■' '''"•• «"! ! 75 Jl H 'im "

»f^,*D.18(S"**.V' ^ <i- 'i- ««2: 10 L. J. g 1, ,.,i- 2W

=":=5i^'ST^ :: ■• •• "

fe|.t&^^.^-«-^r7t^ji^ur^/i

-.^!ra«««-^«:=D:*M:-«„iri3..yn'

-R.oMm2,8i.i„«.-i';«'>fVi,^.. : ;;

815 = ^T^'^^' " * "■ W ;i3 L.-J. M. C. lar" 8 JuV
-■'■Sn»tha83») sn.„ ■".-„ •■ •• '"'-sjur.

«y'.L.&N.^ir. Uy. Co rfowjV.i-'i/^R- K.;)28:-
ggett a Catternu riSMl i fi rT V ^■ U- «23 . .
,«; a Jur. N. i. 2«'. 12 £■ S-,?: »■ TM ; 34 Uj c P
hertyii. Allmaii Cl«7m 'o . • ^••'*6i 13 \V H 'iii/ • '^■

W. R.613 .'" ^^^'''^' ' ^PP- L'a.. 728, 3!) L T Vm 3 =»«
"•Lipnmanna837i spi't I. V ■■ .. •""■■=•'
'ki« -'. P™"on [Mill 2 K « '.Jo' *^ "• «• i " l" "•
mo ". Martyr (isW, 8 B^& c' fiff = '*' ^- J' «• IOC!) "

?^n-o?-''<^-«>.«7'^^^%.ai22rb8..-^«i-.
'^- B..33ir4rL.«i!:-,s-/i^'-p",«- «, ^ ««ra>x. y

""="'^"PM.C.127.: 429

I'AOR

373
1S7

41

:j84

83

UlU
W

730

fi

09

58

B31

384
3«1
142

541
730

<W0
• ■ 504
B«, 144

23

228
278
171
116

117
544

100

xUv

TAULK or CAHEM.

PACK

Downing i>. C»uol ;18«7), L. II. 2 0. I'. 461 ; 3« L. J. M. C. 07 ;

W L T. sal ; IS VV. K. 747 414

Doylo 1'. Falconer (18tt«), L. K. 1 P. C. 328 i 'M h. J. P. 0. :M ;

15 VV. R. ;)8« ; 4 Moo. P. C. C. N. S. 2U:l (U2

Dragonmn, Tho (18«5), U T. L. R. 42H Sl.l

Urako r. FiK.titt (1881), 7 «. II. D. 201 i oO L. .1. M. C. 141 ; 4."!

L. T. 42 ; 46 J. P. 71)8 4«7

Draper i>.(!lenlii)ld(lB;)l), 2 Ual«tr.:Uu 154

DriHiold Co. v. Waterloo Co. (1886), 31 Ch. D. (i38 j 55 L. .1. Cli.

:l»l ; 54 L. T. 210 ; :14 W. R. Ml 58(1

Drover 1). Beyer (1870), 13 Ch. D. 242 ; 40 L. J. Ch. .17 ; 41

li. T. .'IBS; 28W. K. 110 100

Dmcker (No. 2), lie, [1(102] 2 K. B. 210; 71 L. .1. K. I). U88 ;

88 L. T. 802 ; 60 W. R. 592 ; 0 M«n«. 241 2.'>.S

Drummond, lit, [1801] 1 Ch. 524 ; 60 L. .1. Ch. 258 ; (14 L. T.

246 ; 3» W. R. 445 28.1

V. Drummond (IStKi), L. B. 2 Oil. 32 ; 38 L. ',. Ch. 153; 15

L.T. 337; 15W. R.2(i7 01,91,518

u. Nicholmm (1915), 79 J. P. 625 189

Dniry v. Defontahio (1808), I Taunt. 131 379

Duliout ». Macpherson (1889), 58 L. J. g. II. 41X1 271

Duck V. Tower Galvanusing Co. (1901), 70 L. J. K. li. 625 .. (145

Dudgeon v. Pembroko (1874), L. R. 0 (j. B. 581 ; 1 y. B. D. 9(1 ;

:i4 L. T. 36 & 2 App. Can. 284 ; 46 L. J. Kx. 409 ; .'lO L. T.

;)82 ; 25 W. R. 499 ««

Duignan v. Walker (1839), Johns. 446 ; 28 L. ,1. Ch. 867 ; B Jur.

N. S. 976 ; 33 L. T. O. S. 256 ; 7 W. R. mi (il2

Duke of Buccleuch, 'iTie, (1889), 15 P. D. 88 419

, [18911 A. C. 310 359

Dunifriea, The (1858), Swab, 83 277,4(10

Dunbar Coriioration v. Roxburgh (1835), 3 CI. ,t F. a'l6, H. L. .. BIB
Duncan v. Dowding, [1897] 1 Q. B. 575 ; 66 h. .1. y. B. ;)62 ; 78

L. T. 294 ; 45 W. R. 38;! ; 61 J. P. 28(1 ; 18 C. C. C.

527 :142

V. Uwson (1889), 41 Ch, D. 394 ; 58 L. J. Ch. 502 ; 80

L. T. 732 ; 37 W. R. 524 ; 53 J, P. 532 2(19

1!. ScottUh N. E. Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 2 Sc. Ap. 20, II. L. 317

V. Tindal (1863), 13 C. B. 258; 22 L. J. C. P. 137 ; 17 Jur.

347 ; 93 B. R. 628 ",<)

Dundalk Ry. Co. v. Tapster (1841), 1 Q. B, 667 ; 10 L. J. Ij. B.

186 ; 1 O. & D. 657 ; 2 Rly. Ciis. 680 ; 6 Jur. 699 .. 239, 710
Dundas v. Dutens (1790). 1 Ves. Jun. 196 ; 1 R. R. 112 .. 112

Dunelm, The (1884), 9 P. D. 171 ; 53 L. J. P. D. i A. 81 ; 61

Ii.T. 214; 39 W. R.970; 6 Asp. M. C. 304 98

Dunn, Ezp. (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 461 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 375; 61

L, T. 543; 37 W. R. B:17; 6M. B. R. 138 3r>7

1). Birmingham Canal Co. (1872), L. R. 8 (J. B. 42 ; 42 L. J.

Q. B. :i4 ; 27 L. T. 683 ; 21 W. R. 266 028

Dunston v. Paterson (1869), 5 C. B. N. S. 2G7; 28 L. J. C. P.

186 ; 5 Jur. N. 8. 616 ; 33 L. T. O. S. 222 ; 7 W. R 163 .. 117

Dnmnt i\ Wi

22 W. H

Durham C. (;

M. C. 9;'

Dntton, A'x„

V. Atliin,

„ 24I,.T.6
Dyer V. Best (\
N. 8. ui,
Dyke t-. Elliot (
L. T. 45 ; 1
'*. (lower.?
^80 ; 5(1 J.

Birbly's Case (k

WofAnckland
Iwie f. Howcrofl
'Jiat and West It
., 57L.J.Ch.
fcMt Anglian Rv
„ C.l), 775,21
t.«t Fremantlo C
39 ..

KmI 'lloucosters'hi

,, iS;;i7I,. ,j. J

'■at India Co. ,..!>,

fi«t India Ry. Co.,
,. ,'J";7r»;93
•-■St liondon Ry Ci
., 1-'. M. C15

r^'t London Water
'-UPelldM!,),.

f«ernA'rchipelago

'■"ta. Counties Ry.

f'^'tem Cuntio, Ry

,. IJ-Eich. 73- '

'«'»«.. Piu,to,-r„phi,

.O'L. J. Ch. (i28

'^"7".ll^.sker(i"W
fu ^- "*•'; 2!) w
'^^•■■""',"""i«(187,'

LT.342;23W

1,8,

Anr.i: <,» „A„f,^_

xlv

ai?

1 1-- J- Ch. 10,-,;) . uy^L 'i '■; ,'<ll"W (mx). .«. fl, V, -.„•■

A"n"i^(lS!i),7lVy1i '^1'''

MDUcostershire If., c " ,. - •• ' • * •

" ; ••'7 L. J. Ex 7. - ';• I »«lml.m,e,v flmiis t ■.-,

• '^ ■ "•'; l-» Jtir. — -

Ws^^ms¥sh-'"'-n..

'"■xlon Ry."^„'; \.f;« .• M W.^ li. 4 t, -^^

;M«R. R. fe/' ("*^J. s E. * „. „»;,'• >^i>^ ^^^.

t'mntioa Rv ('„ .V •■ .. '"■•'. M. C.

'■ E.«h. 7;i • 7 n" • ^"™-w° CHfii') !i ir'V ,. "

^•"^^i:i'b^'is^r^"5^.r^«^Aj^.7f^

74

(i.'iii

,.■174
li7«

4J7
IKi

lias
r."4
.•14a

l(i.4r)
:i«r.

«7i

412

xlvi TABLB OF CAS'^J.

TAOZ

KmIm .'. Choyno (l«8fl). ii K. * .1. IWl ■• r,mi)i « ci, m^'^'^

^"•^^l:k«™.^J^rj?«^ • --Si"

Ecolo.iMtie.1 Per.™., 0«.o of (MH). ""?!'■"" ■• " f^Z

Koroyd..Co,,lth.rd(18m«7L.J C1..4U8 .. .. •• ^^J

Kalo.t..n ,.. Barnes (WTS), i Ex. D. «7 i 4o L. J. M. t. <•) H^^ ^^^

Kdmundiiti. Eal«llna^^l«'^l I'- •*!'-' .„."o p V ,, ,";jn,-,. ui
Edw.^l.^■lVm■emck(lH5[iMK.*B...«i2C.UI^lt*"^

Kdwy.-,.':Xr!Ijrf,n I...u.mco H,.ioty (IW.l), 1 H- «. D. u.1.;.;. _ ^ ^

_'"c;1m1872);l.U.-7C.P:51«; Vi L. J.C.P;^i 27 '
I, T :!15; 21 W. K. lU" ■• ;: •• •• Tl^

Ti- b nw>n 4 II * AM. 212; 23 iC. 11. 2uu >'-

- ;;: Kid, aU"-2'ciK i. 2»l'; 45 U .1. Ch. 391 : -M L. T. _ ^.^

_Tm a^)', "iJe (i. M. & 0:74; 25 U J.bh. H2; 1 •I"f- ' „„

Tu.',.l.ulnVc (IStiii), L. R- 4 a. li. B04 , h' W. U."ii21 ; :W ' '

L J. M. 0. 15.1 ; 10 I). & S. 52« [J!

i:i.:i(;"«^, ^25^^1>. d'-2^'; 59 L. J.'q. B.37C ; ii W. U. .:;

itHfl .. .. •• •• •• *• " '

Eggingtun -. Lfchlicld (18S5>, S E. & B. 100 ; 24 L. J. Q. B. :«X. 1

IJur N. S. 908; lOaK. R. 387 , ,;, ''"

Eilbeck. K "[1910] 1 K. B. 13« ; 79 L. J. K. B. 205 ; 101 L. T.

688; 17 Mans. 1 • '"

Elder V. Carter (1890), 25 Q. B. D 194 ; 69 L. J. «. B. 281 ; t.2

L T 51« ; 38 W. U. 612 ; 54 J. P. 092 I."

Eliott V. Majendie (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 429 ; 41 L. J. M. C. 147 ;

26L.T.304:20\V. R.721 - i'*-

EUorton, Ex p. (1804), 33 L. J. Bank. 32 ; 10 Jur. 602 ; 10 L. f.

317,722 '."

EUiott, R. (1891), 39 W. R. 297 ■■ ■• *»

„. Richardson (1870), L. R. 6 C. P. 744 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 340 ;

"•'I. T WS; 18W. It. 1157 •*-

EUb V. Kelly {mi), 0 II. * N. 222 ; 30 L. .1. M. C. 35 ; 0 .Inr.

N. S. 113 '■"

TADLE OP OASES.

uiluh. Mx.,t>.'.'i. ;..•'' " Mijo. c. P r,7i

xlvii

Mo

igluh, Sr„tti»h .Sv. n 1 .""• f^- I • 071

«'■»;..-", The (l«r83,1fAVi8%7i,V .j- •■

"« ". D»vio«, flSit.) o ch" ..,.•• •■ ■* ''

1()7

m

Hi

188

«.'IU

210

40!

XM

321
B2

ir;i

'"i "Kendall (18701 r n r " •• .. "^ '"■'"'■•

tt . W n ; **^- ''• «92 '•'-«.•» I.. J. t*. p. 2;y .

tt o. WoUs (1841) 2 ivr c r. „

■ I- C- 424 > 2 fiSt?.^- 'Vfe-^"" ■■ W I- J. C. P 81 . «

28

CML>
244

"•Graham (185!)). 7 H 7 'r"!'."!!*- «■ ««» '

- •• »v. , u ,iur. Jf. s Jiix .
«■ Graham (185!)) 7 ir t „ „ '

ISO

u28

S47
70

w\

xWiii

TAU1.K OK CAHEK.

Eyn)*L«ic«it«rL'orpii., KrJlMliai I g. B. i;t(l i BI L. J. 4. II.

4.1H i Oft L. T. 7:" i 40 W. R. 21)11 ; Wl .1. P. !«» .. m>,*W
Ey«ti.n V. 8luda (ir.74), Pl.iw. 4.".ll 177

Fnirloyti. !>.«».» (IH7I)),4ML. . I. Oil. IW aT:i

Kiilklunil liUniU Itatllu, llr : AV ;>. H.M.S. Cmu.i.ui (11(17), mi

I,., I. P. 47 "I'-

Kniiny Cirvill, TIu. (1875), 1:1 M>1'- <-'»"• 4"''' "■ i '■>- I'. T. imi ; 2

A.ii. M. 0. 4i<).-. :i"'!i

Furley I'. Bonhniii (Iwll), '-> .I.iliiH. * II. 177 i :«» I- .1. fh. 2:W ;

7 .Iiir. N. 8. «lii ; It I,. T. KIM; » W. It. aitll .. 52. ;KI

Fnrrell v. Ti.iiiliii*.ii (17«n, 5 Hro. P. f. 4:w ,. 12, It

Ke«m«iilo !•. Flint (IKHII), 22 fh. 1). ri7lP 1 C2 L. .1. Ch. 47» ; 4K

L. T. IM i ai w. H. :ii« ■■m

Finlhor V. n. (1H«8), 0 H. A- S. 257 : Xt J.. .1. <^ II. 2(10 ; 12 L. T.

114 .'>:iir,57:i

FellowMi'. ClRy(l(t4a), 4y. II. Ill.T; 1 2 li. J. g. II. 212 . k:),hii

f. t'Uy (1H4K), 18 L. .1. Kx. Kit 811

Felstol !•. Bircctor of Public l'n)«.ciitiuii» (11114), 8;i L. J. K. 11.

11»2 I.H

Fulton f. Howora, [IWIO] 1 V. II. ."ilW 2wi

Funnoll v. Kiiller (182(V. 5 II. A C, 4IKi ; 8 D. & U. 2<M ; 4 L. .1.

O. S. K. H. 2(W ; 2(1 U. U. 278 501, i»l

Fenton v. Hampton (1858), 11 >!•«.. P. C. C. ;i47 ; H \V. H. :I41 ;

117R. K. 32 W

V. Th.irley, ri!NP:i] A. C. 44.1 ; 72 h. .1. K. II. 787 ; 8!) L. T.

;ii4i 52 w. k 81 :,•,

Fonwick v. E. Lomlon Uy. Co. (1875), I,. U. 20 Ki. 544 ; 44 L..I.

Ch. Ii02 ; 211 \V. K. ilOl lll4,uL".i

V. SihnialtK (18«8), L. U. .'1 (.'. P. .11:1 1 ;I7 U .1. f. P. 78 ; 18

L. T. 27; 111 W. It. 4fcl M

Feiynxon iind Iliitchinson, Ax /'. (1871), L. It. •> Q. II. 280 ; 40

L. .1. g. 11. 105 ; 24 L. T. !t« ; 10 W. R. 74(i .. 1:11, 4,1.-,

Furgumon v. Ntinnun (18.18), It Scott 740; 5 Hing. N. C. "li; 1

Arm. 418 ; 3 .lur. 10 1 50 n. It. Ola 7(Jll

Femind v. Halliw Land Co., [ISIKIJ 2 Q. 11. l.'tt ; 02 L. .J. <i. It.

479; liOL. T. 8; 41 W. It. 580; 57.J. P. 892 .. :i(M,.%li

Fielden i'. Morley Cori'oriition, [I'JOO] A. C. i;i3; [IKW] 1 Cli.

1 ; «7 L. J. Cli. 1111 ; «'J L. .1. Ch. 314 ; 7« L. T. 2:ll ; 47

W. R. 2«6, H. L. 75, 104,rilii

Fieldinis II. Thomas (18%), (a L. .1. C. P. 10:l C2

Filbuni V. Peoiile's Palace Co. (18!I0), 25 Q. II. D. 288 ; m

L. J. Q. B. 471 ; :18 W. R. 70ti ; 65 .1. P. 181 .. ..474

Filby r. Hounsell, [IBWi] 2 Ch. 737 514

Finch f. Finch (1876), 45 L. J. Ch. 818 ; 35 L. T. 2;r. .. .. LW
Finchlcy Electric Light Co. v. Finchley U.D.C., [1!I03| I Ch,

437 ; 72 L. ,1. Ch. 2!t7 ; 88 L. T. 215 ; 51 W. R. 375 ; liT

J. 1". 07 ; 1 L. G. R. 244, 0. A 171, 'M

Fiiio Art 8,,
,,. 7"-C.;

•'•0 I,. T
Kirlh V. Uv

„. , ^- T. M
fuller f. Iiijj

^ "• "riilK

— " H..w„

Pi , *" ^- ■''">
r'ilnnon;;ur«'

., '' •'• C. I
'iii!«oraW V. t

1. , "'■" ; 7 Jii

fiwiii'iuricu 1,
,. "»!.. T. 2]
fiiz/uKrick f,

y, '32,a«L.
'Wliliigall V I

,, IJ-M.C.
Hwuinj, ... 1,^1,
— .;. Nt,lf(,^^
-"' i 1 Jm. 1
~- •■■ 'Smith (!(.
"Didicr II. jjjfjj

L. •/. K. 11.
'■ tallhrof) (

^'2; 38 w: jj

— '■ lludion (

I- T. IM ; ;(()

* '8^t v_ Salter VlH
"-.Bar^rdd,

"">;;' i'- Lyon,, f,8

TADLB or CAflu.

xlix

•ABLE Olf CASES,

77 V I ""'"'">■• (I* ii ■■ ' ' --

47-.
li

(I

• ^ynn, [18971 i ,„ „ "■ "■*" .. ' " '" •!■ Cli

^ «/^. H. ii ^ '''••'«'••' .ML. ..CI, ■■■«„ ;■ •.

«4,60J

20!)
.')W)

I TABLE OF OASES.

Foley... Inland lUsvonuo (1«68). L. KS?V ^ • '^l^' ^\*^:^^ '^"
Folkortone Corp. v. Woodward <1872). L. B. 1" *-!• 1B9 : «

L. J. Ch. 782 ; 27 L. T. 674 ^J

F.Hit V. Prow.i! (1725), 1 Stra. f.25 •• „^ •■ „ •■ _ •• . „•• ""'

Forbes V. Cochriiie (1824), 2 B. & C. 448; 2 D. .\: K. (.,9 ; 26 ^^^

^E^iltfc™,. (1873), L". R. 15 Eq.'ol; 42 L. J.'ch. OT; '

27 L. T. SU ; 21 W. B. 16!) .. •■ ■■ •• •• l'>'
V. Lee ConsCTvancy Board (1879), 4 hx. D. llfc ; 48 L. J.

-JtZ^.^^-^. l«tr-24 L".I. EX. 299;-l JuV. ^

^J^^^^:^. D.-365;^L,i: Ch.;i27; ^i "^

Ford r D^W (188<i), 5 C. P. D. 59 ; 49 L. J. C. I'. 172 i 41

-h'^^^i^^C. K-^3; ^ ^. 0. p: 24,29 :
L. T. 885; 22W. K. 159; 2Hop, .tC.lW . .. .. Hi

. „. Kettle (1882), 9 «. B. D. 139 ; 01 L. J. Q. B. 558 ; 41

_-':"pyf(V8?J):iV1.^. P.-2«9;-43 L. il. C. P." 21 ; 2!."' *"

L T Ii84- 22 W. R. 159; 2 Hop. &C. 157 117

V. VViley (1883), 23 Q. B. D. 293 ; 58 L J. M. 0. 145 ; 8(1

L T. 74 ; 37 W. B- "09; 5:S J. P. 485 ; Ifi O.x. C. C. ti83 .. I'.H;
Fordhkm'.). SheU(1864), ;«L.J. Q. B. (17 .. .. .. i>K

Fordyoe f. Bridges (1847), 1 H. L C. 1 ; 11 • "'•• 1"' , ■• „■■ '
Ford'. Hotel Co. v. Barlett, [189(1] A. C. 1 ; (.5 L. J. Q. B. lOh ;

73 L. T. 0(15 ; 44 R. R. 241 4"

Foreman v. Canterbury (Mayor of) (1871), L- B- "Q- B. 214 ; 4(1

L, J. Q. B. 138 ; 24 L. T. 385 ; 19 W. U. 719 .. 7a.,72C.

Forsdike .-. Cubiuhoun (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 71 ; 49 L. T. 130 ; 47

J P 393 " ■■ •• •' *• ^'^'*

». stone (1808). L. R. s'c. P. 007 ; 37 h. J. C. P. 3()1 .. 098

Forsterr. Taylor (18:14), 5 B. & Ad. 887; 3 L. J. K. B. 137;

39R. R. 698 (19(1, ,01

Fortescuo v. St. Matthew, Bethnal Oreeii, [18911 2 Q. B. 170 ; m

L. J. M. C. 172 ; 63 L. T. 443 ; 39 W. B. 31 . . . . 3:)5, Ml

Forth l>. Chapman (1720), 1 P. Wms. (HW uii8

Fostir 1'. Diphwys Casson Slate Co. (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 429; Wl

L. J. M. C. 21 ; 51J. P. 470 128,.WI

r.OtW. Ry.Co. (1882), 8y. B. D.515; 51 L. J. Q.B.23:!;

46L.T. 74; SOW. R. 398 151

. . » L. C. & D. Ry. Co. , [1895] 1 Q. B. 711 ; 64 L. .1. Q. B. (15 5«

r. Oxford, Ac. Ry. Co. (1853), 13 C. B. 200 ; 22 L. J. C. I'.

99 ; 17 Jnr. 107 ; 93 R. R. 494 («W

Foster's Case (159U), 5 Rep. 59 -'«■>

». Case (1614), 11 Rep. 03 a ^

Fotherby v. Metrnp. Ry. Co. (180(1), L B. 2 C. P. 188 ; 30

L. J. C. P. 88 ; 12 .lur. N. S. 1005 ; 15 L. T. 243 ; 18 W. H.

112 ■"'

•f ABLE OP CASES
rowler v Hon.* . "* .. ' '"^ ii* T. '*t¥* .

li

TAOE

55,'t
194

44S

42a

(w5

. h. T. is <*^"'^' I" R- 8 y. li. 18; 4.; r ,•• , ,. .. ..

— ■•■ Godfrey (18!)4) n.1 I ,\,-- ■• • '^ L. l.,()

^'S;.^iS:-^50^7j;4or;\i.c.Ki.4-" '

"- '■ ' .irhcrv MK74i t ■. ^'^ . ^-^ :

24
4oo

i;tt
w

(i5

4r,T
i!);i

ii;i,i

141

u!)l

Kil

575
4(Xt

080

B3S

."i7l
2I»I
«4;i

4(;4
.•121

511

lU

TABLE OP CASES.

114

Fry V. Chcltonluvm Curpor ition (1011), 81 L. J. K. B; ■*! ••
Fullopv. Eedman (183!)), 2B Bo,iv. tiOOi 2!( L. J. Ch. 324 , 6^ ^^

^jMU-cJlZiim, 5'm. * «. 73«-; 12 L. J. C-P. 2«o ; ' ^^^

—"i* Uut^f [18n:ii 1 Cli: 335 r«3 l;J. Ch. i78 , & L. f.

X- -1 ■ Vt n Mir.i ^oo P C C. N. S. SI i .34 L. ,1. P. M. & A.

Fu«uer, Thj(i8'jj).g^ »- Ya^i; "^t;. i«, . r, V. r. 592. p. c. »8, 112

(i.

imt

uie r. Laurie (18%), .-. B. &C. lohj ffl K. R

(ialeim r. Amy (18681, a Wallace 71*) .. •• •. •■

al Lher ^ Rudd. [1898] 1 Q. ». 114 : HI L. .1. Q. H. «.. ; 77

L T 367- 46 W. E. 108 ; 01 J. P. 780 ; 18 C. C. C. «54 ..
r.alli..i o.Laborie (1703), 6 T- R. 242 ; 2 R. R. 681 ..

(i„ll„«ay V. London (Mayor) (18«4), L. R. 1 H. L. 34 ; 35 L. J.

Ch 477 • 12 .lur. N. S. 747 : 14 L. T. 8«o

r M„ri;.(1882),8 Q. B. D. 276 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 63; 45

L. T. 763 ; 30 W. R. 161 ; 4U J. P. 32(> .. ..

(Jallsworthy V. Selliy Commissioners, [1892] 1 y. B. 348 ; 61

L. .J. Q. B. 372 i 06 L. T. 17 ; 50 J. P. 366 .. ..
( ;a,„bart r Ball (18(a), 14 C. B. N. S. 306 ; 32 L. J. C. P. IWi :

B L T 420 i 9 .Inr. N. S. 1039 ; 11 W. R. 699 .. 146, 481,
„. Sumner (1839), 5 H. & N. 5 ; 29 L. J. Ks. 98 ; 5 Jur.

N. S. 1109 ; 8 W. R. 27

(iambier v. Lydforxi (1854), 3 K. & B. 34(ii 23 L. .J. M. C. 69 ;

2 C. L. U. 9.')1 ; 18 .Tnr. 352 ; 97 R. R. i>18

Uapp II. Bond (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 200 : 56 L J. «. B. 438 ; .'.7

L. T. 437 ; 35 W. R. (W:!

Carby v. Harris (18.J2), 7 Ex. 591 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 160 ; 16 Jur.

<iardiner',\Br(18«7), 20 «. B.C. 249; 67 L. J. Q. B. 149; 68

L. T. 119 ; 36 W. R. 142 ; 5 M. B. R. 1

(lardnerv.Luc.ls(1878), 3App.Cas.582 .. .. .. 386,

V. MansbridKO (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 217 ; 67 L. T. 2(h. ; 3u

\V. R. 809 ; 51J. P. 612 ; 16 Cox C. C. 281

V. Whitford (1858), 4 C. 11. N. S. 666 . . . . '.'KM,

fiarlandii. Mead (1871), L. R.6 Q. B. 411 ; 40 L. J. (i. B. 179;

24 L. T. 421 ; 19 W. R. 1156 .. .. '

(larnett li. Bradley (1878), 3 Ann. Ca». 944 ; 48 L. J. Kx. 186 ;

39L. T. 2(il;26\V. R. «98 285,289,314,

fJaskell and Waltora' Contract, llf, [19061 2 Ch. 10 C. A.

( iaskeJl V. Kinir (1809), 1 1 East 166 ; 10 R. R. 462 . . 634,

(iasliffht & Coke Co. V. Hardy (1886), 17 Q. B. D. 619 ; 56 I. .1.

Q. B. 168 ; .55 h. T. .Wi ; .33 \V. R. 5() ; 61 .1. P 6

6.i3
664
441

:i.-il
692

530

600

(il'fl

491

2110

217

131

410

470
491

TABLE OF OASES.

li. T. no T' ^ ^^^ ' ■ *• " I- J- P. D & i' 34 !;?''

ifauUot r. Brown (1872) I n-„- •• .. •'■'*•»'
nay .. Ma^a.w;a8«3), , ,r., s «- " ^ • "^^ '"

,. ,1- T. 80 ; 2:J w\ 1 54a ^''- ^"^i « L. J. ch. .-w . -a

nncral Iron Screw Co « s-i '* •• ■• ;'.».

« ■ .-W W. R\ti '■• °- "^ ■' »» I- J- Ch. 7W) MW L f
wd's Estate, 7fr, risfttl T ni. ■;,. ••

mian Date Coffee Co., ;j,>i8H2', "«.,.,••„ - •.

h. T 248; 30 W] K. ^ "^ ''* ■ '" I- •'• V- «• iia • 4n

n. R. 114 .. ._ '• " "■ *^ K- "17 ; 4 L. J. oh 41 • ii
« -'; Holland (IWiS), L. il ] OP «••,.. •■ ••

liii

>'AGB

032

R»l

Sol

127

244

4(i5
.•S12

(Kil

<i!l4
Oou

277
Ufa

278

52;)

2S

70

Biy
212

12

58!l

173
fi08

215

27.-), S

513
a;

/l

Mv

TABLC OF CASES.

Oiffonl r. St. Luke'», CIioIkm (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 141 ; 5» L. J.

y. B. 612; Bl L. T. 3«8; 54J. P. im (Wt

Mid Itury, /.'. (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 3(18 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 181 ;

fi8L. T. 522; .-WW. R. 408,52.1. P. 110 1157

Oillwrt V. Oiuiport & Alverstono U. D. C, [1«X6] 2 Ch. 587 .. 51(1

t>. Jones, [liW5] 2 K. B. (i'Jl IX)

Oildart V. Glad»tuno (1810), 11 Eiwt (i75 ; 12 But 4;t0, tm . . 528
Oiles ». (irovor (18.'i2), 1 CI. & F. 74 ; 2 M. & Scott l!t7 ; •■> BiiiK-

128;36KK27 250, Hl()

Oillow B. Durham C. C, [1911] 1 K. B. 222 ; SOL. J. K. 1(.380 ;

104 L. T. ;« ; 75 J. P. 33 ; 8 L. (i. B. 105ft (W4

Gilnioro t>. .Shutcr (1078), 2 Lev. 2-27 ! 2 MiKl. Uop. .110 .. -.m

Oirdlestono tJ. Allan (1822), 1 B. iVC. (il 4:il

(ilasbrook ». Owen (1890), 7 T. L. n. (i2 2o|

OlMgow Ey. Co. 11. Huntor (1871), L. R. 2 Sc. App. 78, II. L. 172

GlaM t). Pnttcraon, [1902] 2 Ir. R. WiO |

Classington «. Rawlins (1800), 3 East 407 Kin;

(Jloavos V. Matriner (1878), 1 Ex. D. 107 ; 'M L. T. 49fi ; 24

\V. R. 639 (Mil

CiloBSOp V. Boston Local Board (1879), 12 Ch. D. 102 ; -19 L. .1.

Ch. 89 ; 40 L. T. 736 ; 28 W. R. HI 723, 7' I

Olv 1 V. Marsetson, [1892] 1 Q. B. .'ilC ; (il L. .1. Q. B. 18(i ; (i2
' L. J. Q. B. 40« ; H(i L. T. 142 ; 40 W. R. 2(i4 ; 7 Asp. M. (J.

148 .-UW

(Joddard, 7(e (1850), 1 L. M. & P. 25 ; 19 L. J. y. B. ;iOo ; 87

R.R. 522 711,-,

Godlontonti. Fulhara, &o. Property Co., [1905] 1 K. B. 431 ■

74 L. J. K. B. 242 : 92 L. T. 3(12 (i,,)

Oodman ». Crottor, [J914] 3 K. B. 803 117",

Godwin B. Walker (1896), 12 T. L. H. .W ,-,■>:;

Goera V. Bell, [1904] 2 K. B. VM ; 73 L. J. K. B. 448 ; 90 L. T.

675;53W. R.(f4 271

Goldberg v. Liverpool Corporation (1900). 82 L. T. 3«2 .. •':;[

Golding V. Stocking (18(i9), L. R. 4 (J, B. BKi ; 38 L. J. M C

122 ; 20 L. T. 479 ; 17 W. R. 722 ; 10 B. A S. .348 .. (17, 4lf'

Goldahede v. Swan (1847), 1 Ex. 154 ; Ki L. J. Ex. 284 : 74 R I!

623 ■ ■ «

Goldsmid, Be (1887), 18 y. B. D. 295 ; 56 L. J. ( ). B. 195 • X,

W. K. 148 ., 214

V. Hampton (1858), 5 C. 11. N. S. 94 , 27 L. J. C. P. 28(i •

4 Jur. N. S. 1108 ; 116 R. It. 578 (»i, 542

Goldsmiths Co. v. West Metro. By., [1904] 1 K. B. 1 : 72 L .1
K. B. 931 ; 89 I . T. 428 ; 52 W. R. 21 ; (« J. P. 41 •' 2(i

T. L. R.7 m:

V. Wyatt, [1907] 1 K. B. 95 ; 7(i L. J. K. B. Kifi • 93

L. T. 8.53 1 71 .1. P. 79 i;»r,;|.|

Goldson t). Buck (1812), 13 East 372 "'.12:1

GiMdmnn's Trusts, He (1881), 17 Ch. D. 2(«i ; 50 L .1. Cli 4'-r-

44 L. T. .327 ; 29 W. R. .-.w; .. ' " ' -r,,;

TABLE OP CASUS.

. A^&'m.J Deo. J. *f. 4^^f:i/- C- P.IOO

Iv

I-i Jur. 238 '^ •* ^^''•*'' Mooro, 4«:i , 2 Roi!; p -^ 88,

~-„iv.-rr i«Q. B. 73 . ,n>; „ . ••. .. ' *''=• ""p- i ;

I'J Jur. 238

328
30!»

370
«»3

585

201

287

£64 ,

43

535

V3I
<i3«

725

84
723

*■ WM to J. p. ^g

*«n 0. Wright n88fi\ IB A- „ ■• ' ^- '^^ "19 !

36 W. R*^*^*^)' " Q. B. D. 201 : .-w, r -, „ -

*«n V. Wright n88fi\ IB A- „ ■• ' ^- ^- "19

p-^»V^^->"^^:-r25.,--;:^'=;"'-:t

ham „. I„g,ei„ asiii , » • = '"^ "• R-

210
254

188

717

667
147

173
358
883
118
271

271

M

TADLE OP CASES.

DO

mi L. J. C. P. 1:19 ;
14B,
23 L. J. Ex.

12««

. 877 ; 17 W. R.
11

Omnd JuMtion W. W. Co. v. Hampton aC, [1898] 2 Ch. 331 ;

«7L.J.Ch.()03i78L.T.e73;4«W.K«44 ■■ -

Grant v. Andonwn & Co., [1892] 1 Q. B. 108 ; Bl L. J. Q. B,

— ^kZ\lMV,!i>'yi. &Vf. 113; 111' L. J.'Ex. 228

K. R. 6«4

V. Kemp (18:M). 2 Cr. & M (Btl . . ■■ •• ••

1.. Langitou, [laOO] A. C. 383; IIH h J. P. C. fl« ; 82L. T.

H29j M J. P. «44 .. •■„ , ••

OravM V. Ashford (18«7), L. B. 2 C. P. 410

IBL. T. 08; 15W. R. 498 .. ..
r. Logs (1854), 9 Ex. «42; 2 C. L. U.

228; 9«R. R. 931 ■•,

Grave.' Oa«i (18U9), L. R. 4 (J. D. 71B ; 20 L.

1018

r.ray v. Cooksoo (1812), 1« East 13 .. •• ••

_r. Pullon (1864), 8 B. & S. 970 ; 34 L. J. Q. B. 26o

-J'r^d.^i amlac^v. ml 59 U J. ChluS ; 62 L. T.

335; 38W. R.310 .. •• „ •• ••

. „. Sylvc.ter (1897), 01 J. P. 807 i 46 W. R. 63 .. ..

Craydon, J?., [1896] 1 Q. It. 417 : 65 L. J. Ch. 328 ; 44 W. R.

495 ! 74 L. T. 175 ; 3 Mans. 5

(Jroat Australian Co. v. Martin (1880), 6 Ch. D. 1 ; 46 L. J. Ch.

289; ;)5L. T. 874: 25 \V. R. 246

Great Central Gas Co. ,'. Clarke (1862), 13 C. B. N. S. 838 ; 32

L. J. C. P. 41 ! 11 W. R. 123

Groat Charto v. Kennington (1743), 2 Stra. 1173 .. .. ..

(iroat Eastern By. Co. v. Goldsmid (1884), 9 App. Cas. 92, ; M

L. J. Ch, 162 ; 52 L. T. 270 ; 33 W. R. 81 ; 49 .1. P.

5^0 . 480,682,

Great Northern Cunimittee «. Tnett (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 284 ; 46

L. J. M. C. 237 ; 25 W. R. 584

Greiit Northern Ry. Co. v. Winder, [1892] 2 Q. B. 595; (il

L. .).y. B. 608

Great Northern Steamship Co. v. Edgohill (1883), 11 (J. B. D.

225 'l*"'

Great Western Ry. Co. v. Bailie (1864), 6 B. & S. 928 ; 34

h. 3. M. C. 31 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 264 ; 11 L. T. 418 ; 13 W. R.

203

V. Bishop (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 550; 41 L. J. M. 0. 120 ;

26 L. T. 905 ; 20 W. R. 969

V. Rly. Comrars. (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 182 ; 50 L. J. Q. B. 48;) ;

45L. T. 2("i; 29W. U. 901; 56.). P. 35

. ■ V. Solihull Rural Council (1902), 86 I,. .). Q. B. 852, C. A.

. r. Sivimlon and Cheltenham Ry. (1884), 9 App. Cas. 809;

68 L. .(. Ch. 1075 ; 51 L. T. 798 ; 32 W. R. 957 ; 48 J. 1*.

820 •;

Great Yarmouth Union v. Bcthnal (ireen I'nion (1907), 97 L. !•

440 11''.

I'AQK

708
267
297

4u:<
71

481
41

31.1

3;.i

5I->

52:i

018

327
150

(;84
7ia

722

m

475

TABLE OF 0A8B8.

Ivii

899' ^'- (l^WOJ. 16 Ch, D. 457 ; 43 L. T. 184 ■ M W n "

047
r>43

;i77

"'t^^irit^.tz'!:^-^-^.

■.31UJ Ex. 4:4

1 37

(180

4m

418

444
704
315

651

R. n. mT <"">'>' « !•■ J- y- B. 28 r 8 k* b. (i.^ • lig
^™ . Pott„.(i87»), 4«. •f4.,. 4« .. .;•„. e;^. ^

"fiAjS-f M^ij;^ -^^^ B. .4. ; 45 W. E. ;«>'■ ^'^
4«i ; 3i V'Ks^^' *-'"• D. «» ,• 52 L. J. CJ.;-717 ; 48 L. T. '"

?^!"2«.59^■^^"•'»^'-I^^■c.l^•l5,3c

111 ». wneral Screw Collier c„. ,,;^> .. 4,. g^

Xf^P- (1854); 23 L. J. M. 0. 153; 2 e; * B MO ■ 1^' '^^^
m^^?^'«^^"'^B.U357:55U.,.Q.B.4;.B-.

:«k ". Grocock, ri9191 w 'nt ,^,' ^"^ "• ^- ^W . .

214

120

97
W5
210

;.»cU._Grc«ock.ri9r9rw''Nl63'

-°Vl*S>>.7'* L- J- P. 82

". In the (foods
'e«. Wimbourn,,
L T. S84 ; 47 w!

r^S""--.^8^2Q. ^mrhL.i:^.u:^^

.. «30
76, U'H

-833,732,726

iTiU

TABLE OF CASBB.

Uuerin, 72e (1880), B3 J. 1'. 4(W

Onlly V. Smith (18»4), 12 Q. B. D. 121 ; B3 L, J. M. 0. 33 ; 48

J. P. 30l»

Gundry v. PinnigOT (1832), 1 D. G. M. & O. B02 j 21 L. J. Ch.

401)

Giinnutad v. Prico ( 1870), L. R. 10 Kx. «5 ; 44 L. J. Lx. 44 ;

32 li. T. 41)2 ; 23 W. U. 470

Outhrio ». tuk (1824), 3 B. & C. 178 i 3 tnrk. 133 ; 5 D. & U.

24

Outtoridge v. Munvird (1834), 1 Moo. & R. 330

Owyn II. Hardwicko (1856), 1 II. * N. 49 ; 20 L. J. M. C. »7 ;

108R. R. 448

Gwynne v. BumoU (ISSfl), B Bing. N. C. 403 ; 2 Bing. N. C. :«) ;

2 Scott N. R. 711 ; 1 Wmt 342 ; 7 CL & F. 672 ; 51 R. R.

43, H. L 7,11,402,

V Drewitt, [1894] 2 Ch. 018 ; «3 L. J. Ch. 870 ; 71 L. 1.

190 •• •■ •• ■•

Oye II. Fulton (1813), i' Taunt. 87fl

rAGR

130

489

0

im

4a

732
38U

H.

Habergham ». Vincent (1793), 1 Vbs. Jun. 08, 410 ; 2 Vc«. Jun.

204; 5T. R. 92 1181.'

Hack V. London I'rov. Bldg. Siwy. (1883), 23 Ch. I). 103 ; 52 L. .1.

Ch. 541 ; 48 L. T. 250 ; 31 W. R. 393 .. 1(14, 2:!»

Hacking v. Leo (18li0), 2 E. it: G. 90U ; 29 L. J. Q. B. 204 ; 0 Jur.

N. S. 952 ; 8 W. R. 495 523

Hackney Fumiahing Co. ». Watts (1912), 28 T. L. R. 417 .. &i

Hadden ti. The CoUector (18««), 5 Wall. 107 74

Haddon'a Estate Act, [1889] W. N. 96, C.A C21

Hadfleld's Ca«e (1873), L. R. 8 C. P. 300 ; 4*? L. J. C. P. 140 ; 28

L. T. 901 ; 21 W. R. 037 (11

Hadji All Akbar v. Anglo .\rabian Peraian S.S. Co. (1906), 11

Com. Ca«. 219 W

Uadley v. Perka (1886), L. R. 1 Q. B. 444 ; .13 L. J, M. C. 177 ;

12 Jur. N. S. 062 i 14 L. T. 325 j 14 W. R. 7:i0 ; 6 B. & S.

375 064,081

Haggin v. Comptoir d'Esconipto (1889), 23 Q. B. 1). 319 ; 68 L. J.

Q. B. 508 I 37 W. R. 703 nil

Haigh V. Kayo (1872), L. R. 7 Ch. 469 ; 41 L. J. Ch. 687 ; 20 L.T.

675 ; 20 W. R. 097 4."i4

o. West, [1893] 2 Q. B. 31, C. A 144

Haldane v. Boauclerk (1849), (> D. & L. 642 ; 3 Ex. 638 ; 18 L. J.

Ex. 227 ; 13 Jur. 326 mi)

Hale, JJe, [1915] 2 Ir. R. 362, Ir 127

Hall V. Knox (1803), 4 B. & S. 510 ; 33 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 9 L. T.

380 ; 12 W. B. 103 420

II. Nixon (1875), L. K. 10 g. B. 152 ; 44 L. .T. M. C. 01 ; 32

L. T. 87 ; 23 VV. R, (112 (125,704

lix

«74

luu

141
lUfi
13

"H
01

TABLE or CA8B3

66 .. "<">' Charge, Jte (1840), 4 E^g-. 19 , f- ^'i*. «28
Han.p,.ur.Kickard 1874) 43 1 t„ • .. "^^ "• *38 ; ai

-^|'X°§;r:i?^-'-.-r..i:c.4i7;^ -

W),14«

U2»
IW

0(18

3;"'""rr^--<^'i>-i--i.T;i.,3iwH

S^^St^^i^?'::>^L :: :: ■• l^

i«»

297

87"
101

«a

fiSU
35:^
139

u

TABLK OK (JABEd

I'M

Ml
4rill

4S4

H«forf'. Tn,.t., ifr (W»), J» Ch. D. 185 J M W. R. KW i 41

T T *tK*i .• •• •• •' *'

H«tK7e«»o. .: Did<tam;'(1875>. U K. HI Q. B. 882 , 44 1. .1. M. 0.

178. 12 1. T BUO' 23 W. K. Ha*

H.rl"k',..^.hbJr^l^5), 11. Ch. D. r«. ; ol L. J. Ch. IH. , 4.".

lU™ J;.Tn.S [li*5i]VK. B. ^ i [1«W] 2 K. B. 241 : TJ

H^.^^\^i:r4:^^{us..n.n:^ :: ::

i;;;;^i;:r'K'o- *^^^T»= ^ ^^ ^- =- ^^i- = ^ «•
„.^l^.;Sh1,h.';;.?M"nv;r.»4;-ii L.-:i.E."2i«ri

D. N. 8. 89H ; W) K. R. «M 'l'.^

,. B,«ton (1810). 2 Camp. :i4« .^1"

„ De Piiinn (1HH6), :« Ch. D. 2:» Iit«

= V. F?;.!,^;:. (i877i 2 c. p. d. m ■. 4.. l. j. ^ r. :m 2.c.

«. Jolin. (18»11), 1) C. 11. N. a lo2 ; .» L. J. M. t. 183 ; .1

L. T. 408 ; 1> W. U. IKi 2«u,;ilU

„ Luca flDlO' 2 K. B. 2(11 2!NI

Harri^n, fix >. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 753; 53 L. J. Ch. »77 ; 61

liT878.. .. .. •• ■• " " ••

W«. (1888), 2 Do (i. * J. 2211 _ ..

'„. BLvburn (18«4), 17 C B. N. S. 1178 ; 34 U .1. C. P. 10« ;

id Jur. N. S. 1131 ■ 11 L, T. 463; 13 W. 11. 135 ..
,.. Carter (187«). 2 C. P. D. 20 ; 4« L. J. C. P. 57 ; 35 L. T.

511 : 25 W. K. 182 ; 2 Hop. & C .324

„ Loiulon ami Brighton ky. Co. (1802), 2 B. & S. 122 ; 2U

L .1 Q. B. 209 : 31 li. J. Q. B. 113 ; 8 Jur. 740 ..
„. Kutlalid, Duke of, [1899] 1 Q. B. 142 ; «2 L. J. Q. B. 117 ;

(18L T.. IS; 41 W. 11.322; 57 J. P. 278 .. .. 4ie,ri4,-

,,. Stickney (1847), 2 H. L. C«fc 108 ; 81 B. R 01 . . . . :K,

Harri«on'« Case (1777), 1 Leach 180 Wl!

Harrod ». Worship (1801), 1 B. & S. 381 ; 30 U J. M. C. 160 ; 8 Jur.

153j9W. U. 885 W-'

Harrop v. Owett (Mayor), [1898] 1 Ch. 525 ; 67 L. J. Ch. 347 ;

78 L T 387 ; 46 W. E. 391 ; «2 J. P. 297 .. .. 104,510
Hart V. Horwig (1873), L. R. 8 Ch. W» ; 42 L. J. Ch. 457 .. m

. „. Marylebono Borough Council (1912), 78 J. P. 257 .. 414

Hartley (Owxh. of), [1899] P. 40 ; 08 L I. P. 16 ; 47 W. K. 287 24.^

w. Klnor (1917), 8« L. J. K. B. 93; 07

K. Hooker (1777), 2 Cowp. 524

Hartnall ii. Ryde Comraissioncni (18«;i), 4 B. & S. 301 ; 3;i L. J.

Q. B. 39' 10 Jur. N. S. 257 ; 11 W. R. 703
Harvey v. Arohbold (1825), 3 D. & C. 020 ; 6 D. & R 600 ; U. &

M. 184

V. Lyme HegU (1869), 38L.J. Ex.141

Haakerv. Wood (1885), 54 L. J. Q. B. 419 ; 33 W. E. 697
Haalett «. Sharman, [1901] 2 I. E. 433, Ir

'.•7
074

.J8!t

417

Vlli

720

•M
222

:il«

TABU OF OABEB.

hi

HMU

38S

.■«!
(124

KIT

H«wth.,„,„, A,:(tiH^i)- ".-.p?*^ . •• . • *-• ' • ~2i .•»
"'-try V. ii»uinTml r i,-. •• -■ ■ "'* •■ '•" ** i"

Il«y ". Ayling (isfin JJ^',"*" .. ' " ''• •'• «• "• iHI;

128

aon

2B9

ir;t

.•17.1

645
470

m

litU
70B
510
183

470

121

t- J. Ch. 62a ; 62 L t'Tt -" ■•—

"Jar. N s iua.!:,i "'■ * El. ««• oa r •.

K. R. 68r.^ ^' ^ 1* J- *'• C. 40 1 H ■;. V V ••

K2 ; 4« J. |. V^-*' " Q- B- 0. 179; 61 L T "io- V

"• «W« (1864) Si V',?""'- ■■"« ■■ •• -. 71

»7, 477

bcU

TABUS or CAUI.

Hoiidurwni'. Biw (IMS), 3 Stark. IM .... •■ "
t ,, MmwM (WTB), 4 Ch. U. IKl ! 5 Ch. D. «W 1 «« L. J. Ch.

— I'ltllmM, ftuik im E- * "iifiii • }«• * jd

.. Uhwborn. (1837), 2 M. & W. «« ; 6 L. .1. M. O. S8 ^

H«nl.y, B. (1878). 0 Ch. D. 469 ; « L. J. Cli, 147 ; TO L. T. 53 ; '

u lur N S 12t).'t' V h. r. 302; I'J W. 11. 17J
H.n:;'rN«^.rTrini^ Hu- (1H»H) « E ^^B. 72:1, 27

I I M C r>7 ■ 4 .lur. N. S. 68" i »'2 B. U. 74.1 ..
Hcrirt«.skyeraM4i;5g. !..»«.■>: 2 ». * L. 4», 13 L, .1.

ILnlim fsineital aU/lS C.B. N. 8. •■««■;■ 32 U J. C. i'".

43iBL.T.«4«; IIW. K.184 ... ■■ „^, . ■;

Uonon ». lUthiiiinoii Improvonioiit CoramiMionBn, [18»2J A. C.

498 .* .. •. *■ '.

Ilonclilield ». Ci.rk (ISWl), U El. 712 ; 2.i L. J. Ex. 113 ; 2 Jiir.

N 8 2.S9- IfJft U. K. 74:* .. .. •• *4,

UortfonlVnion v. Kimpt-m (1868), 11 Ex. 2.->5 ; 25 L. J. M. C.

H«rtforil.WroVe.^i'"New liiver 6'.. (lIKU), 74 L .1. Ch. 4» Z
hSIJK " 8^.™ (1848), 1 Kx. 8.-,.. i IH U J. Kx. 1«« ; 74 U. U,

TsVminoi;,, [1892] 2 Q."b. M7 '; «2 U J. Q.B. 5 ; 67 L. T.

(Ill • 41 W. R. 67

He.keth'». Athorton, h. B. (1873), L. R. 9 Q. B. 4 ; 4.1 L. .1. M. C.

37; 29Ii. T. 530

Hewitt'. E.tate (1888), 6 W. R. 5.T7 ; 110 R R. fHi2

„. Prico (1842), 4 M. & O. :B6 ; 1 1 L. J. C. P. 292 ; 3 Railw.

Cm. 175 ; r> Soiitt N. R. 229 47!l,

HewLtt V. Alien, [1894] A. C. .«) ; H3 L. J. Q. B. 008 ; 71 L. T.

94; 42W. R. 670; fiH.I. P. 700, H. L.

HeyJoli'i Cue (K)84), 3 Rop. 7b :», ISl

HoywiKid'i fjitftte, fl--, [1916] P. 47

HickmnllK. Mairey, [1900] 1 Q- B. 752

Hick., £x p. (1875), X. R. 20 E.,. 143 ; 44 h. J. Bank. 10« ; :«

L.T. 432; KMV. R.8.i2

Hickmn ». Darlo* (18a3), 23 Ch. I). 690; 52 L. J. Ch. 4,-i;); 4K

L. T. 449 ; 31 W. R. 417

Higgin»on V. SimpKin (1877), 2 C. P. D. 7« ; 4(1 L. J. C. P. 192 ;

3B L. T. 17 ; 25 W. R. :W3

Higgi V. Sohroeder (1878), 3 C. P. D. 252 ; 47 L. .1. Q. B

28W. R. 8111

Hilder V. Dexter, [1902] A. C. 474 ; 71 L. .1. Ch. 781 ; 87

311 ; 7 Com. Ca«. 2.)8 ; fl Mans. 378, II. L

Hill, Ex p. (1877). « Ch. D. «) ; 4B L. .1. Bank, lit! ; 37

25W. R. 784

rAni
478

651

HIUI
3:1:1,

5(J>I

24!)
71

111
;hu

414

. 4211 ;

.T.4I1.'

241

UCi

57u
380

1144

21111

40*

l;«

4lj.'p

li?

WBI.B or CA8KB.

hiii

^f^-^^^^^;^,c;^^,r

•Wo

— ,'• r^...<ion A c,„,;;,v » ■• '' ** 1- T.

440
412

.•|»7
JIM

ItIO

Hue

DM
23

IW I» T 7H() " "»'Mway« Co niiu-s - -

„.'.";« J„r. fill • w"R^-,,",.t«« i 8 <J. A bTl '• n .''• 7- •'*»'
Hipkiiuf, Bim,i,,„j' ',"• ""iM .. "••"'• HIaJ.o, I,

fe«k A, f',;„^«,-. *;^ T ■, ; 4^ ^v;^'«y 2 K B. ,v« , J^ 'WS

r7T„wS«|f"£« ■■•■ .i.s

2»I
247
fiOO

., a

Ixiv

TABLK OF CA8E8.

6114, 60S
648 ; 36 L. T.

Holiuan V. Johiuon (1775), 1 Oowp. 341 ..
Holmo 1). Guy a877), 5 Ch. D. 901 ; 48 L. J. Oh.

600 ; 25 W. K. 647 ' »<

Holmra ti. Clarke (1881), « H. & N. 349 : 30 L. J. Ei. 136 ; 7 Jur.

N.8. 397; 3L.T. 675; 9W.R.419&9L. T. 198 .. 720

!>. PiMii, [1914] 1 K. B. 57 191

V. Sarvico (1864), 15 C. B. 293 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 24 ; 1 Jur.

N. 8. 258 ; 100 R. B. 357 28

Holt V. CoUyor (1881), 18 Ch. V. 718 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 311 ; 44 L. T.

214 ; 29 W. a 502 107

Himeybono v. Hninbridgo (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 418 ; 56 L. J. Q. B.

46 ; 6<i L. T. 365; 36 W. K. 620 ; 61 J. P. 103; 1 Fox 26 130

Ho<«i «. Barrington (1868), L. R. 8 Bi. 218 5H

Hood Barrs v. Hcriot, [1897] A. C. 177 ; 88 L. J. Q. B. 368 ; 76

UT. 2!K); 45\V. K. 607, H. L Iff

Hope V. Hoiw (18.->4), 4 De O. M. & G. 328 ; 23 L. J. Ch. 682 ;

102 K. It. 146 5I<

Hopkins V. ISmcthwick LiK:al hd. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 712 ; B9 L. J.

O. B. 250 ; 82 L. T. 783 ; 38 W. U. 490 ; 64 J. P. 693 . . Ml

Honpor, It,- (1867), L. B. 2 g. B. 387 ; 8 B. & 8. 100 ; 38 L. J.

O. B. 97 ; 16 L. T. 686 ; 16 W. H. 443

Hoiiton V. Thirlwall (1864), 9 L. T. 327 ; 12 W. II. 72 ..

Ilurdon r. Hoskcjth (1859), 4 H. & N. 175

Horn «i. Ion (1832), 4 B. & Ad. 78 ; 2 L. J. K. U. 163 ; 1 N. &

M. 627

Honisoy L. Bd. t>. Monarch Building Society (1889), 24 g. B. D.

1 ; 29 L. J. g. B. 105 ; ;« W. R. 85 ; 63 J. P. 774, C. A. 4,

Ilornaoy U.D.C. v. Honnell, [1902] 2 K. B. 73 ; 71 L. J. K. B.

479 ; 8(i L. T. 423 ; 50 W. R. 621 ; 88 J. P. 613 . . 248, 64!!

Ilonfall u. Davy (1816), 1 Stark, 189 714

Horton V. Colwyn Bay U. C, [1908] 1 K. B. 327 ; 77 L. J. K. B.

215 ; 98 L. T. 647 ; 72 J. P. 57 ; H L. G. R. 211 .. .. 172
Hough V. Windu. (1884), 12 Q. B. D. 224 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. 185 ;

60 L. T. 312 ; 32 W. R, 452 ; 1 M. B. R. 1 .. 390,501,65(1

How V. L. & N. W. Rail. Co. (1892), 61 L. J. g. B. 308 . . 51!l

Howard u. Beall, [1889] 23 g. B. D. 1 m

II. Bodington (1877), 2 P. D. 203 .. .. 649, 856, 858

Howarth f. Sutcliffo (1895), 64 L. J. g. B. 729 128

Howe V. Syngo (1812), 15 East, 540 704

Howe Machine Co., iJc (1889), 41 Ch. D. 118 818

Howell V. Coupland (1876), 1 g. B. D. 258 ; 46 L. J. g. B. 147 ;

33 U T. 832 ; 24 W. U. 470 (;74

V. London Dock Co. (1858). 8 K. & B. 212 ; 27 L. J. M. I'.

177; 4Jur. N. S. 205; 112R. R, 524 4»!l

Howes r. Inl. Rev. (1878), 1 Ex. D. 386 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 88 ;

4«L. .I.M. C. 15; 36L. T. 684; 24 W. R. 897 .. ..574

H.iyland v. Bremnor (1848), 2 C. B. 84 ; 1 Lutw. Reg. Ca». 381 ;

J5 L. J. C. P. 133 ; 10 Jur. 36 ; 60 P.. R. 417 .. 165, 374

Hoyie, Re, [1893] 1 Ch. 84; 62 L. .1. Ch. 182 ; 87 L. T. 674; 41

W. R.81 612, oW

Hill
184
297

670

372

Hoyle t>. H

Huber V. I

Hubert v. 1
Hudson V I

». Edo

L. T. 7«

— «; **<=«

W. R.8

"• Toot}

462; 28
Hndston r. JM

„ 9- a 21a

Hoggins V. B«
%l;es, .ffj:,

Jur. 447
— . *«, [188

*l W. B. ,

— V. Buck),
1" li. J. K

— /• Chathar
tut fiajf. (

— "■ Chester
•'•■■«2; 8 J
760

— •■.Coed tL
K-B. 5;i9;

a R. 509^..
». Morris (1
18 Jur. (itt'l

— «.8mallwTO
031,. T. IHH

""'I Dw'k C„!t.

"• Tooth asr?) qr> „ •■ .. ^ ^- •'• M- C. iWj fo

Hud^ton r^Midiand Rv o,. V.o^^," • '* ■■ '•" ^- T.

ni

L. J,

Jur. 447 :. ^'' *•* I" J- M. c. 138 o c V ,, ;• 24fi,

"60 ~ ' "' *J- J. Uh. 97 . 7 r'-,7,' " "e i;. f *

- "• Coed Taion r„ll- •■ • '" ^"^ = » W it

~v. Morris (1860> 'o n. /.• ■• ^' B- M; 9!) '

- «• >lmall„™j ,, ■■ „•■ .. ' "^ ''■ J. Ch. 761 .

' '^'' Co. .. „„,.„„ ^,li, ■■ .: ;» ^; •'• «; B. «« ,.

■"V- MitCell (183-.) 1, ^ V "'■' = ™ ''■-"■ «"

Had. Cas. 70 ; lipS'n 'j; * K. 2(e ; « L r < . »""'• '""H
'V V. (Jery (184») 7 c 'b' A,.^'' «■ "• •■"« ^- ^- "•' ■• -

*i-.r- * • *^ J- P. a« ^- ^- °- ^«« ■■ 53 L. J. g. i ,^-

hv

4»1

278

«!l

lUU

42

1!»4

021

S65
20O

u8S

m>

41;i
218

91
.•146
404
570

oa3
028

'>T:,

^•=«'i-T.^-^«,V'nr-'':'>-^«V48L:;;.c.p.

ao3

455
679
297

(m
on

Ixvi

TABLE OF CASES,

Hunter ». Clare, [1899] 1 y. B. 635 ; (W L. J. Q. B. 278 ; 80 L. T.

197 ; 47 W. R. .394 ; 63 ,r. P. 308

V. Gibbon. (1866), 1 H. & N. 439 ; 26 L. J. El. 1 ; 6 W. R.

91 : 10 Jur. N. S. 1249 ; 108 R. K. 672 .. ..
V. Nockold. (1880), 1 Mao. & G. 640; 1 H. & T. 044 ; 19

L. J. Ch. 177 ; 14 Jur. 266 ; 84 R. R. 217 .. .. 74,

V. Pott. (1791X 4 T. R. 182 ; 2 H. Bl. 40,') ; 2 R. R. 3o3 ..

Hurcum r. Hiileary, [1894] 1 «. B. 579, C. A. •.,_••, ■•
Hurlbatt V. Baniett, [18»;i] 1 Q. B. 77 ; 62 h. J. Q. B. 1 ; 67

L. T. 818;41 W. kXi

HuMey V. Homo Payne (1879), 4 App. Cm. 311 ; 48 L. .T. Ch.

846 ; 41 L. T. 1 ; 27 W. R. 585

HusMy'»Ca«e(1611),|»Rep. 71, b

Hutchin. u. Player (1663), Bridjr. 272 .. .. .. 315,

Hutchinson, He (1883), 16 Q. B. D. 521 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 682 ;

34 W. R. 47o •■ ,„ •■

V. Gilleipie (183«), 11 Ex. 798 ; 25 L. .1. Ex. 103 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 403 ; 105 R. R. 799 ^ ..

„. Greenwood (1855). 4 E. & B. 324 ; 3C. L. R. 115 ; 24

L. J. g. B. 2 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 328 ; 99 R. R. 491
Husham v. Wheeler (1864), 3 H. & C. 75 ; 33 L. J. M. C. 153 ;

10 Jur. N S. 545 ; 10 L. T. .342 ; 12 W. R. 713 . .
HyamH v. Stuurt King, [1908] 2 K. B. 696 ; 77 h. J. K. B. 794 ;

ii9L. T. 424

Hyde r. .Tohnson (18.3<i), 2 Binjt. N. C. 776 ; 5 L. J. C. P. 291 ;

3Scott280; 2Hod)te»94; 42R. H. 737 69,

Hyman r. Van den Beruli, [190HJ 1 Ch. 167 ; 77 L. J. Ch. 154 ;

98L. T.478

rAcii
193
12

3ai

269
41U

661

512
153
322

31

711

r.KJ

21(1

138

17

I.

lies 11. West Ham Union (1882), 8 Q. B. V. 69 ; 51 L. J. <i. 1!.

17 i 46 L. T. 149 ; 30 W. R. ;t«3 ; 46 J. P. 600 & 8 Ajip.

C»H. 386 ; f.2 L. J. y. B. 650 ; 49 L. T. 205 ; 31 W. 11 '.128 ;

47J. P. 708

ImijerialflasCo. v. Limdon Gas Co. (1854), 10 Kx. :«» ; 2 C. I,. It.

12:10 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 3li:i ; 18.lnr. 497; 2 W. R. 327 ; lit'

R. R. 466

Income Tax Commrs. r. Penisel, [1891] App. Cas. 531 ;

y. B. 265 ; 55 J. P. 803 1, 108,

India, The (1863;, 32 L. J. P. M. & A. 185 ; 1 li. & L.

L. T. 316

(No. 2) (1864), :i3 L. J. P. M. & A. 193

Indian Chief, The (1800). 3 Rob. C. 12

Industry, The (1812), 1 Onllison 114

Ingate B. Austrian Lloyds Co. (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 704 ;

C. P. 323 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 975 1 114 R. R. 905 ..
Inglis V. a. N. Hail. Co. (18i)2), 16 Jur. 896, H. I>. Sco. .
Ingliss r. (iniut (1794), 5 T. R. 530

61 L
448,
221 ;

1-'
.•|tl

iV)l

1, 1.-W
2M

TABLE OF CASB8.

— 1,. JwT,.'ii?»"« (1889). 23 o. I.-,^ ,,;.• .. .:. ••

Ixvii

'"», Tl,e (1887) L H_'i D ^- «• 635 "• <»« . *" L. J. Ch.

.,1i-££fe^,<-^^a7«;B..7;

"■• 'V A. 12!) ; 0

"l!.«k.K278' ' "* ^- •'• «• "• 191

n L.

.."r.Moo™(l«a9),I&ik.i5

;'«L.j.ch.ffii, ;;, L. ,;;

677

3»8
004

S08

fioa

044

627

2Gt*

017

2U4
457

2a7

C54

401

7:«
, 7ai

63U

S7C
101

47

81 .. •'■"«'■')<» Ex. 17,); 221 J p ••,., •• „ .. 083

^»»U>,?V-:: •-

»r. N. «.'o^!flVR\*5?i '5« = 27 L. Jig. b;-448 ; 4 '"

hviii

TASLK op CASES.

fAAE

Jacob. ». Brett (1875), I,. K. 21) Eq. X ; 44 L. J. Ch. 377 ! ;12

L.T.522:23W.R.5S6 , 2:»5, 237, 238

iiCreilitlLyonnaw (1884), 12 Q. R D. 880 ; 03 L. J. Q-B.

Iml ; 50 L. T. 194 ; 32 W. a 7«1 ^'•''11

I.. Hart (1900), 2 F. (Just. Cm.) 33, Sco .. <8

Jame. v. Buona Ventura Syndicate, [1890] 1 Ch. 457 i ft'i L. J. Ch.

284 ; 74 L. T. 1 : 44 W. R. 372 l'»

r. S. W. Ry. Co., (1872), L. R. 7 Ex. 287 ; 41 L. J. Kx. 82 ;

27 L. T. 382 ; 20 W. R. 238 241,078

JameK,n, B,, [1908] 2 Ch. HI ; 77 L. J. Ch. 729 ; 98 L. T. 745 41

V. Brick Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. U. 208 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 249 ; :'.9

L. T. 594 ; 27 W. R. 221 349

Jaque. r. Withy (1788), 1 H. Bl. 05 4- „- .„. - - J;!;!

Jarman,&.». (1877). 4Ch. D. 835; 4BL. .T. Ch. 485.. .. M,

Jarrett v. Hunter (188C), 34 Ch. D. 182 ; 60 L. J. Cli. 141 ! 5^.

L. T. 727 ; 35 W. R. 132 ; 51 J. P. I(i5 614

.larvi. f. Homminga (No. 1), [1912] 1 Ch. 402 •• „ " ^'<-

Jay e. Johnatone, [189.3] 1 Q. B. 25, 189 ; 02 L. .1. Q. 11. 128 ;

68 L. T. 129 ; 41 W. R. 101 ; 67 J. 1". :iOtl 542

Jay's Fumiahing Co. r. Brand & Co., [1914] 2 K. B. VXi ; Affd.,

[19151 1 K. B. 458 L „ •■ , k- ''•"'-

Jefferya eBooney (1854), 4 H. L. Caa. 815 j 3 C. L. R. 025 ; 24

L. J. Ex. 81 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 015 .. 4, 74, 273, 274, 275, 291

JeBtnya v. Gurr (18;U), 2 B. & Ad. 833 ; 1 L. J. K. B. 23 ; Wl

R. B.7fl9 "l"

Jeffries v. Alexander (1800), 8 H. L. C. 594 ; 31 L. J. Ch. 148 ; 7

Jur. .1.8. 221; 2L. T. 7li8 208, 210, 210, ;i2.-,

Jenkinsi). Gt. Central Ry. (1912), 81 L.J. K.B. 24 .. .. 20

V. Jones (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 128; 61 L. J. y. B. 438 ; 40

L. T. 795 ; .30 W. R. 008 310

Jenner v. S. E. Ry. Co. (1911), 105 L. T. 131 ; 75 J. P. 419 ; 55

S. J. 55;i o:i.-i

Jennings v. Hammond (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 226 ; 51 L. J. Q. B.

493;31W. R.40 OIPl

Jennings' Case (1838), 2 U>w. C. C. 130 M->

Jesson V. Wright (1820), 2 Bligh 56 ; 21 R. R. 1, H. L. .. .. Wa

.leatons D. BriKike (1778), 2 Cowp. 793 211)

Jesus College Case (1810), Duke on Charit. Vscii p. 78 . . . . 1 r,«

Jewel D. Stead (1860), 0 E. & B. 350; 26 L. .). Q. B. 294 ; 1 .lur.

N. S. 1136 012

Jeyes ti. Booth (1797), 1 B. & P. 97 i»

Johannes, The (1800), Lush. 182 2(W, 27^

Johannesberg Co., Ke, [1892] 1 Ch. 58:1 ; 01 L. J. Ch. 284 ; 00

L. T. 006; 40 W. R. 450 Wl!

Johns «. Ware, [1899] 1 Ch. :169 174

Johnson. Ex p. (180;)), 3 B. & S. 947 ; 9 Jiir. N. S. 1128 ; 32

L. J. M. I' 193 ; 11 W. R. 020; 8 L. T. N. S. 275 .. .. 1:1

, feu. (l/tiiii, 7 Dowl. 702 ."«

V. Colani ( 1H7."0, L. U. 10 y. B. 544 ; 44 L. J. M. C. \Xi ;

32 L. T. 725 ; 23 W. R. 097 -'<:'

TABLE OF OASEjS.

Ixj'x

B2;i

104

■ ■ 2ii
•■ mi

] A."c. 447";
72],

J. P. 78 .. -.

"■ Reea (1916) su'i t "iV „ ••

--H.„i^^-VS|0^,«.^ .. 72
Junes, & „ nin\ t" „ •• ■■ ■ ax. js; le .Jut.

„ ( «22), 6 B. A- AM. 8;i7 ; 1 D. & Ri„; . ^, „ •• m

-^g.™^e„ (1841). SM.,V«« ;„£... K, J-

r.77

722
474

«4K

fi()2
574

Ii.'i0
621

.■1U.S
12(j

~1«-. Doc., 0^(1^1. -K. ^. ^,^^..^^ - . -' ,^

_^:fe;^-,er^'^-«--rr,..K.B.V7i.\K;-*

^'- oniart(1786) i t i> i. ■■ "* . Ji»

■. 101

Ixx

TABLE OF CA8E8.

Jort^™: 8. E. R.C„. i^^)-l^/-^^i'''- "" ■ '* ''^ "'• '^''-
•US ■ 1 Jur. N. S. 4;B ; IIKI R. K- » .. .. •• ••

12»

r(w

K.

Kaufman r. ne«o„, [mil 2 « B lU ; 73 L. J. K. B. 320 ..
Kay r. Godwin (1830), 0 W B76 ; 31 R. !'■"«> .■■ •

Kea™.".. J^rdJfainier.' CV (m»). 0 C. R. N. S. 38« , 28^

K«i.l- &w"i.^Sf„kS;l'cion';^|» B.-445 = -79 L. i/'
K B. 722; 102 L.T. 898; 74 J. P. 292

S^lf^Ma^t&Wn, [18k] 2 Q. a-b24; is L. J.

% B.369: 70L.T.B09;68J.P.748

». Stevens (1909), 73 J. P. 112

KeigUey's Ca«J (1809). W ReP-, \f^- ^ ■■ , •• ,,,J „ ,V
Keillev r Cnraon (184:0, 4 Moo. I'. 0. C. «3 ; 7 -lur. 1J7. P. < •
KolK, [iSb"i y. b! 180 ; «4L. J. Q. B. 129 ; 71 1. T. 843 ;

4;iw. R. 191

Kemp r. Lewis, [1914] 3 K. B. B43..

». Neville (1861), 31 L. J. C. P. Iu8

I. Waddingham (18(ifi), L. R. 1 Q. B. ,5.18 ..

Kennedy v. Cowie, [1891] 1 Q. B. 771 ; <iO L. J. M
L T 598; 39W. R. 886; 55 J. P. (180; 17 C

- V. Gibson (1869), 8 Wallace 4it8

C. 17" ; M
Cox c. e. sail

Kent C. C. Ex p.. [1891] 1 Q. B. 725 ; m h. 3. «. B. 435; (15
L T. 213; 39 W. 11.485; 56 J. P. 047 .. •■ ■■

„. Gerrard, [1897] A. 0. H25 ; (i« L. J. Q. B. 077 ; 77 h. T.

109 ; 4« W. R. HI ; «1 .1. P. 804

Kenwnrthy v. Schnliold (1824), 2 B. & C. 945 ; 4 U. A" It. u.<(. ;
28R. R. 600

Kenyon r. Easlw.KHl (1888), 67 L. J. Q. B. 4B6

44

7m

57»

202
199

4:w

570

Hi

15

TABLE OP CASES.

Ixxi

TAIiJC

i«r

703

119

392

125
40.)
414
ASS

Ivinning, jEe,, niii« .A,. • -. •'"="• A Ad. B9;

fkstall Brewery^, Hh--^'^!"'-^'* •■ '""'^^-A^-

'1' "• Taylor, ri<ii II k- iV "'"* •■ ■»" w. j{ of I . ,•:, , J;' •' •'"

l^ ■• w <i,i.l:'iJl'i^- "■ «-" ^ «« J^- •'• K.^:',i„^i m l"?'

™ ; w. V. .f il: s;;* E. <29 i r L. J. M. c. u

; iN.i-i.;
; «) I-. T.
M. c. ai';

141

r,2N
i!t;t

fi44

574

i, 309

son

293

Kili

M-,

370
127
632

583

523

129

2!)7

kxU

TABLE OF CASBS.

Knight V. FsHMhy (1706), 2 8»lk. 070 .. •■ •• ■•.

. %. Lee, nmt] ] Q. B. 41 ; tl2 L. J. Q- B. 28 i 07 I* T. 688 ;

41 W. R. 126 ; f.7 -T. P. 117 .. _

Koill .. Tow«.(18»0), 24 g. B. D-mimtJ Q. B, l.tO,

697 ; Ki h. t. 47 ; 38 W. R. 521 ; 84 J. P. 78l> .. ..

Knowle. & Soni. Ltd. ». Uolt«n *;'"P<'^i""',i i l) K^i. •«« •

aS;. jl,:r('ll77)!?Ch. iJ. 60 ;i7 L. J, C^.m ; ^

K™i\^l^Uo^lU]'2\B.91;«7;i...g. B.782;74
L T 047 ; 48 W. R. 030 ; 62 J. P. 489 .. .. 623,

Kutner v. Phillip., flSM] 2 «• B. 207 ; 60 L. .1. Q. B. 60„ ! 64
L. T. 628 ; 39 W. R. 626 •■ •• •• 2»n,

Kyle r. Jeffrey. (1859), 3 Maeq. H L. Cm. Oil, H. L. .. ..

KyiiMton r. Mackinder (1878). 47 L. J. Q. B. 70 ; J7 L. T. »M

rxnn
4SII

Mr,

107

01
14'.i

271
1112

512

625

314

ail

UIKj

Laile r. Trill (1842>. 6 .lur. 272 .. •. •• ••.,••
Lafone v. Smith (1«5»), 3 H. & N. 733 ; 28 L. J. Ex. .13 ; 4 .Tur.

N. 8. 1004 ; 117 R. R. 959

Laird i> BriBCT (1881), 19 Oh. D. 22

iX ' bX 1855 5 E. & B. 92 : 3 C. L. R. 1124 -, 24 K J.

Q. B. 273 ; 1 Jur. N. S. 499 ; 103 R. R. 383 .. ..

Ukeman v. Stenhei..on(18fl8), L. R. .ly. B. 192 ; 37 L. J. M. C.

57 : 18 L. 'r. 839 ; 16 W. R. 509 ; 9 B. * S. 54
Laker «. Hordem (1870), 1 Ch. D. 644 ; 45 L. J. Ch. 316 ; ;14

L. T. 88 : 24 W. R. 543

Umb V. Brewster (1879), 48 L. J. Q. B. 277, 421 .. ..

— V. N. London Ry. Co. (1870), L. R. 4 Oh. 522 ; 21 L. T.98 ;

17W. R.740

1,. Stott (1899), 30 Sc. L. R. 913, Sc

Lambert v. Hutchinson (1841), 2 M. & Gr. 868 ; 3 Scott N. U.

221

„. Taylor (1825), 4 B. A- C. 138 ; 6 D. & R. 188 ..

Lambton u. Parkinson (1887), .'So W. R. 545 .. ..

Lainplough ... Norton (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 462 ; 68 L. J. Q. H.

279; 37 W.R. 422; 53 J. P. 389 «>

Uncashire r. Stretford (1858), E. B. ,; U 225 ; 27 L. J. M. 0.

209; 4Jur.N.S. 1274- 113 R.R. 013

Lancashire and Yorkshire Ry.'Co. r. Bury (1889), 14 App. Cas.

417 ; 61 L. T. 417 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. 85 .. 131
!■. Knowles (1888), 14 App. Caa. 248 ; 20 Q. B. D. 391 ; 67

L. J. g. B. 150 ; 52 J. P. :140

Brick, *c. Co. r. LancB. & Yorks. Rail. Co., [1902] 1 K. li.

061, C. A

X,
(iI2
4!irp

142

•2i'J
1,W

7U8

L'47

(85

:a

W

l«i3S

TABLE OF CASKS
». Kendall, ri89Bl ■) r. u ».. •• .. • ^'

Ixxjii

W.Jk.frVKlKCr-M'f.H.L.

*"Kham Riuk (i„ ■%^»" ««• L B. 884, So.
*7 L. T. 642°%', 1??\ 1" «• U. D. 44 . no 1- . .:• _ ..

"Vjj. 1. ouu ■ ■ ■ " ~ ^■••- u. una ! 4H r j ^, ...

}5/'-^a4«r=i'1^i^»«^-^».44,^i.,.^:,^..

101 R. R. 282^ HL "■ ^- "^^ ••SI ; 24 l'j (, ■u . •
th«m ,. Hide (iss")- f p ..;,.•• . . "* ''^ "'■ ^^ «• 301 ,

-ri?*S ■ . » ' ' ■■:.■'■ "■■'= ' ■ ■»• -.«

I3S

38fi

30

145

3!)7

lOA

108

TO

474

S02

«oo

6!I4
618

fiU4

388

«»7

92
740

3*2,387

ety L

68
6115

W3 .• ihjur.ml. b'rP*?,')' i« «• b. e;^' \^,- r, •

V?5ginV'pVj'»«.-...Q.,

"■8^1111(1883), BACsSi J •• •

B7,
284;

471

6%

6(14

«83
2(j»
270
ISO

430
413

106

Ixxiv TABLE OF CASES.

L«id8meUiiu(Co.«. Uicl»»d».m<17«2).3Bunr. 1341 .. ..573

LrM2!loVui.N.8.7.11;12W.R.«15 .. .. 475

Ifr^B^^- !P\TB."n^'- I.-i. «. B. «« , .i, U T. 2
r^tt?Vi.«a8tU) :tl>L.J.M.C. ai7;«I-.T.581 .. .. im

l™ . Bua« * T^.n|j.|. •^•^^"•(JJ;}^^. {j; J^''C- P-'g^; *»,, „„,

_'i\"ii^.«;r.[18!^l'i.i:|>.W V«l I'- •»■ «i. B- '"»= «f^- T-

648 • 40 W. B. 4tl» i iVI J. V- ll"H ■• 'W- i"?: 'P^, 4,.!

—TsinlLn (1847), 3 C B B71 ; 4 D. & L. .!«« ; 1« h. .1. C. K

1()5 i ll .I..r. 127 ; 71 n. K. S24 1,H, r.. ,

... o Tavlcir <1»13). 23 C<« ' ■ * • iJSO l'«

Wh •». N Staff..rd.inro Uy. Co. (1H(«)). 2H L. J. M. C. 150 , H

W R 2111 • B H. * N. ItW '!:<•'

Loet^-N^wtoLasSl), U n. 1 C. P. .BS , 35U J. 0. P. 286 ;

14 W. R. 1I.'W "*'

„ Suinmeriiill (IHII), 17 Ven. 50K .. ,.• . „ .- . •■ «-'

Leete V. Hart (WW , L. U. :tC. P. 322 ; 37 L. J. 0. P. 157 i 18

L. T. 292 ; 1« W. B. «7« •• ,•.„•„ " ■"*

Lo Konvre -. Miller (1887). 8 K & U. 321 ; 20 I.. .7. M. C. 175 ;

3 Jar. N. S. 1255 ; 122 R. a 582 (154, (Hi?

LoMott » O. N. Ry. Co. (1876), 1 y. B. D. 690 ; 46 T. J. Q. H.

557 • :« L. T. 334 ; 24 W. K. 784 4411

Leioe.t«r CoriK,r»tion v. Burge« (18.-H), 5 B. & A. 240 ; 2 N. & M.

131 : 39 B. R. 450 •• ■■ ;121

Leiah V. Kent (178B), 3 T. R. 3tl2 .. .. 240, 5.32, 534, 7:i5 "iW
S Council ». Leith Harbour Comm., [1899] A. C. 508 ; 118

L J. P. C. 109 ; 81 L. T. 98, H. L m

Leith Harbour Comm.ti. Poor Inipeotor (1866), L. E. 1 So. App.

17 247

I-e Loui. (1817), 2 Dod.. 229 263, 2W), 272

L^nmn" Ho«;eley(1875), L. R. 10 Q. B. 66 ; 44 L. J. Q. B. 22 ;

31 L. T. 833 ; 23 W. H. 236 3IH

Lemayiie ». Stanley (lfi81), 3 I*v. 1 fi», r,14

Le laSurier ». Lo Mosurior (1895), 64 L. J. P. C. 97 .. .. 25ti

L^iZr. Mitchell, [1912] A. 0. 400 ; 81 L. J. P. 0. 173 .. 0

Lemy». Watson, [1915] 3 K.B. 731 IM

LeNevev. Le Neve (1747), Amb. 438 436

Lena, Be, [1895] 1 Ch. H52 ; B4 L. J. Ch. 468 ; 72 L. T. 407 ; 43

W. R.406 n*

Lennox v. .Stoddart, [1902) 2 K. B. 21 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 747 ; 87

L. T. 2«; «« J. P.4«!l IW

Leominster Canal Co. it. Shrewsbury, Ac. iRy. Co. (18,"i"|, :!

K. & .1. IkM ; 2« U .1. Ch. 7«t ; 3 Jur. N. S. 930 ; 112 B. H.

■»« fio*

TABLE OF CA8E8.

477
455
IMS

Levi .. S.MJ '''8'"," Ciike Co. (1UIH\ •« t? t "^^ 2*' 54 Baa

Held Cor,„r»ti„„ v. S,m„.™" :<.'il5„- ?• J21 .. 140,1^)1, 630

.field C„n„ ?? = ^'■>^'r.7m: 37, V K"^/' ■«» Ch. D. 56

2f||Tr:«''"-"^i«^)!^^B^a5i,.n.f

teiULoftho„w.ri8!)«ir;. „.;,•.. ■■ .. 714,715

213

430

347

500

IHH

196

41

732

136

IpH',. T TTu •*'' ■■ .. "■■<•"■'» ;i6 1,. J.

«00

«07
693
177

Ixxvi

TABLK or 0MIS8.

M.

LimulD Collo«» Cm* (IBM). » Il»l>. «{ '',,•■„,, ", ^'^ta
Uncoln ». Wright (im). i !><■<>• *.•»• »• i 2« "* J- '-''• ^<»
LiniUoy .. B»rr..n Um«). « ?• »• f' „" «. " ,,„"«n . ij
o. Loiirh (ISW), 11 «• U. 4aa i 3 N«w »«•. tiu. (M i 17

L. J. M. 0. BO : la Jur, 8HW .. .. ., " „ 'i^t. H
Unum V. BUk»n.y C,M.p, «■•«., (!";,'» ; » "• *• C. 853, M

I I »■« all • 13 L. T. HI) ; H W. It H4.1

Uo„S'±»™c\^"Xck.r(lH^O. !««•"• D. "«; «.

L. J. O. II. 1H9 i « !<• T. 7>W i :W W. 11. 54(1

I.ittl< V. Pi«.lu (liNiU). » U- * t- ll« : 7 I' J- (O- **•) '^' "• '** '
Liltlild "o/wx'" (1H73). L. a. I) Ch"; 247 r« L. J. Cl..i3B i i)

Mv„n J,i iJlroUKh Itank ». Tumor (1H«1), 2 U. (1. F * J. «.« ;

'«l I. .1 I'h X1> '"'"• "• ■ "' •

I. I M *,' 1IC>: ft Jur. N.M. 1344 H W. It. IBM .,

LUnmor. /;;, [1«% 3 Ch. «« , 72 L. J. Ch. 72.> , «8U T.8M ,
61 W. U. HIB

!i:i:'''/;'A'''^i?iQ"'l":'^i--^ >-• ■'•■^. «•>*' > f^* i-!^-

H04' S)W KIW; HM. II. 11.21" "7«.

TLlnyll (IHM), li Q. 11. U. 72.". ; ra L. T. KW ; 3;» W. U.

407- 4I)J. P. •tH'; l"CoxC. C. 7tl7 .. . _. ..

Lloyd Itoliai..., /.V (1885), 2!l Ch. U. 2H> ; M L. J. Ch. 748 ; 3!)

L.>bb ..^ Stanley (l'«*). 5 g. ii. r.74l"D. AM.II35 j ISL.J.Q.ll.

L.K!k"«c,' Ki."p. P"ppietuii (iitWt), tiil L. T.'320 ;'39 W.R.lu ;'?

M. B. K. 184

Ijockwiwd ». .\tt.-Oeii. (1842), 10 M. & W. 4«4

Loiiao V. HudderaBehl Crpn. (N... 1) {18«8), «7 L. J. g. 1>. Dtl»

v.. (No. 2H18W8), 117 L. J. Q. B. 571

Lopidon .■. B.K,th. [IMJOl 1 g. B. 401 ! «« L. J. g. B. l.U ; HI

;h, ri»«0]'l g. B. 401 ; «« L. .
" L. T. (KB ! 48 W. U. 28« ; 04 J. P. 11(5

„. Trotter, [liWO] 1 g. B. 1117 ; «l> L. J. Q. B. 312 ; 82 U T.

151 J 48 \V. V..:m:IH .1. P. 421

Lolli-y'. Case (1812), 1 K. & K. 23« ; 2 0. & F. 007 n. ; 37 R. I!.

•.'411

London and Blackwall By. Co. v. LiniehouM (1857), 3 K. A .1.

123 ; 20 I,. .1. Ch. 184 ."14,

and N. W.Uy.f. Kvans, [181)3 1 1 Ch. 1 ; «2L.J.Ch.l ; ti7

L. T. KW : 41 VV. II. 14(1

„„d N. W. Uy. Co. V. .\«hton, [lltlW] 1 K. B. 023 ; W. N.

2:14 23,

and S. W. By. Cu. v. Flower (187«), 1 C. P. D. 77 ; 4j

L. .1. C. P. 54 1 33 L. T. 087

and S. W. Hy. Co. ». Hill«, [1900] 1 K. B. 512 ; 75 U .1.

K. B. 3 m ; M L. T. B17 ; 70 J. P. 212

I'M!

:i7s

454
«7I

464

731

•M
OKI

liilO

20'.'

tW7

332

:iiCi

514
57:1
42U

aw

ll!l

2«

lU

314

.■)U

1:1:1

l.B

(127

."i:':t

TAD« or OASBg.

London tad Sut><irh.n f-. j .,

l«xvH
1»

L. T. IM : m w il'?™] A. C. lat : 71 i. i „^ •„ ..

4L'

64a

60

C- C. r. H,.™..l. ■ <" • » L O. R. 79 yj

,2y«;sf,;«,.,L.j „ p",624

«'. R. J.) . '•"••» •'^'"- lourn. «3s . -, , _ -.„- -

• '^ 1^ I. 201 ; 43

i 4" »V. R.

"• R. JCl ., " -"Mill. u,|2 ; 71 J

•'"int Su4 Ck „ I ""!' <"*'-). -'N ■!'. U a ■<,!« •• •■■•<«

.•J7I

.in

ri55

Ixxviii

TABLE OF CASES.

•241

27H

4i):i

1127
«t4

L,...g E.ton B«re«tio„ Ground, Co. .. Midland Ry. C«. (1«)2), ^^

1i73 , 37 W R 372 ; 0 A.p. M. 0^1 •• p • •„ ^

Longmnn ti. East (1878) , 3 O. 1 . li. i*-' . •■' "

*L.T.1;26\V.R. 183 ^. ..

Looker f. Haloomb (1827). * B'"t *» r -«0 P C . .
V'^' I ^^^TiT&J w""2Vl J cri« , 103 EiR. 27

Lovo*^..=Br,i8^):'d »«. f., -"I. ..Q. B.-^58; 51
L„.^in^^i>2ll|^S?l?;L%%^-rp:-711 ;•« U ■.. 0. P.

?f t' ; N S ra9^ 13 L T. 421 ; 14 W. R. 90 and L. II.

.^ H."l. V; Tl".V4^: is L. T. 874 , 16 W. R.^ ^^ _

LowSv'wton Ovo^ekr. (li^^^^ ^^^^'Vi'^isf- ' "'
Lowe, .B^ p.. [1891] 1 Ch. 627 ; 60 L. J. Ch. 292 , 64 U 1. 487 ,

_^ii,^rr cK k%^-.- f "5 L. i: K. B.W = -.k L.^:;^

Lowt^er'i. Beniinck (1875), t. R. 1» E,,. 16.! : 44 L. J. Ch. 197 ;
■tr T. T 719 ■ 32 L. T. 156

T T ftfW* ■ 35 W. R. 112 ; 61 J. "• 2ol

LuJ^J:C^(^).^ M.'& W. 302 ; 9 L. J. E.. 190; M

Luokm^;."pridk»m (i877), 6 Ch. D. 205 r46 L.J. Ch.W ; 37

Ludlt'i.^ki, ymlt|B.531 rVs I.i. K.a274,VK,L. T.

458 • 52 W. R. 475 ; 68 J. P. 24.J ; 20 T. L. R. .276 . .
Lundey, Be, [1894] 3 Ch. 135 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 897 ; 71 L. T. 7 ; 42 ^^^

Lunayc'!'..t (1871), L. K. 6 Ch. '4B2 ; 40 L. J. Ch. 588; 24

L T 922 ; 111 W. R. 6U» ' "

Hint V. Loudon and N. W. Ry.Co. (!»»«)• H^.;, '.Si '^-.fjv' if

L. J. IJ. B. 105 ; 12 .Tur. N. S. 409 ; 14 L. T. 225 ; 14 W. U. ^

Lurrttt V. Wakeiy, [1911] 1 K. B. 906 ; 80 L J. K. P. 713 : 104

T fp 29() . •• *' •• .. '-

Lyde 1-. Barnard' (1836), I M. & W. 101 ; 5 L. .I.Ei. 117 ; IC.ale
388; 4«R. R.2i» "■•"■

8!)7
5ffi

619
32.i

224

TABLE Of CASES.

Ixzix

'AOI

"»•« Settlement Vu"i^^^^•.'i?^""«««■•^ "9an ," '2<

"? i •*> L. T. i5«9 • 9fi vi?'S' ,^.-^PP- C". «62 ■ 4fl t" T , .•■ *•«

M

-iP«Pper,tI903]A.C.l02,.74I,JK « ..

,^e a8«2,;-7 p. b j„. ■• ' "" "'■..''■ «■ '•'^^ ^ »2 L. T.

[;• M. * p. est : 6 E.^'i',^„.f-«5^^2i L r c p. ^•

211
13i

218, m, m

U4

670
174
73

'• J. oil".

"•Wa.t Loudon VVi«,ve,,t'.(.--,

!'■ -??-.?• (I883V 24 f!!, n .,V™ "• R- 7i5 ^

, 4;J7
80

633

187

73 L.

V*"00_;, iff*

••Bua*ihJ:-,«B.-i64 :: ••
«^"""^!^'-.!'«^-^''-i^.^-M.c:»7'

•' It ,, — ■ * U 1 , (,(i3 . d ^y

T.

!.'8

is
R.

374
log

«72
228

600
«82

2B7

212

72S
oO

013

Ixxx

TABLE Olf CASES.

36

120
204

257

455
51
591)

607
titlb
•Sit
(..
100

McLean «. Prichard (im), 20 y. B. D. 286 ; 68 L. T. 337

W. R. 608

SX!-A%KIn1\?^[1^1]a;c.46^-;601:J.P.C.

MoM^'uf«.'^6»ke a'8|)% Ch D-' m^ L. J. Ch.M2 ; B6

M-M^.^; rLi™^.TfKi.r.^^ 3j ^ w. cn;28 ::

McSkwith V. Dublin, &c. fty. Co. (1871), L.R. 7 Ch. 1J» ..
McWiUi»u.«.Ad«m.C1852,lM«,NH.L.Ca..lJ6 .. ..
McWilli»m., a:p.(180.3), 18ch.*T«f.l69,Ir... •■ i;

MM,:. Snli'^skll y. B. 230 , 60 L. J. Q. B. 227 , U

I T ■) • 3!) \V. R. 280 JOil, -MJ

Madra^o » W L (1820), 3 11. & Ad. 3M j22R. B. 432 2.iH

Magdalen College Ca« (1816), 11 Bep. 71b-73» - 2W, 24;,, M

_ Hospital 11. Knott» 1879 , 4 App. Ca.. 324; 48 L. J. Ch.

5T9- 40L T. 4«6: 27 W. R.682 :ii3,:l7a

Maggi if{(18^), Tch. D. 645 : 51 L. J. Ch. 560 ; 46 L. T.

M ^f '-nl )iifire\ 'l? R 4 4 & K. 417 i** L- J- Adiii. 1 ."

&?1:l:r'M&^; Vx'c. -.m-.m l. j. p. c. ««; ,a

L T 10

Makin r.'watkiMon (1870), L. R. « Kx. 25 ; 40 L. J. Ex. 3,1;

23 L. T. 592 ; 19 W. R. 28(i

Maleverer v. Red.haw (1670), 1 Mod. :» . . .. .. ■•

Malin. V. Freeman (1838), 4 Bing. N. 0. 395 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 212 ;

Malta ^May (1844).'i3 M. & W. 511 ; li'u J. Kx. 48 i 9 Jur,
19;63RR. 708 .. ;• „ „L> ■• . "

Mancheiter (Maror) v. Lyon, (188.1) 22 Ch^ D. 277 .. ..

Manley v. St. Helen. Co. (1888), l' H. & N. 840; 27 L. J. hx.
159; 115R.R. 842

Mann ». Nune (1901), 17 T. L. R. 569

Manning V. Lunn (1845), 2 Car. & K. U .. .. ■•

. _ V. Phelpa (1864), 10 Ex. 59 ; 24 L. ,1. Ex. 62 ; 102 R. K.

M..nser».' Coglmni, [I'llOS] i" Ch. «« ; 74 L. j. Ch. 327 ; K

Mniisell ". R. (1857), 8 E. &'r 54 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 4 ; Dear., A
n. C. C. 375; 112R. a468 ••.

Mantle v. Jordan, [1897] 1 Q. B. 248 ; B« L. J. Q. R. 224; 7u
I,. T. 652 ; 61 J. P. 119 ; 18 C. C. C. 467

Mai.fon r, Tab..i« (1885), .-tO Cli. D. 92 ; 54 L. .1. Ch. ll»)8 ; ...i
L. T. 289; Xi W. H. k:(2

174

;169
mi

KU
701

.17.1

4
295

tSfi
IM
BiS!

WBLK OF CASJJ8.

Ixxxi

609
BO

ars

49!)
4fi4

matin* Hum *V "■J'"^- "6 .
.k J- M. 0. il? .%??"?""« (1873), L R. 8 ■„ „ ■ •

'Jen, JEt „ (j'gffv^: R- «« .."•'**> «3 i. J. Ch. 471 •

^lclloili,(1862) iif/. ■> •• ••'■«B. &,

.Pitman (isaa),,'*?. .. . '• «• ft .i.|.i ;

Ue-watorCu 7l8«.n"r „ - ' '^^'^ =

»tW(l«,3,,f„«^R.144 ..
■ Land (1849) I 'in b ,

?^ ^ (1879) 4 , ; S- "• ««*

"^('79.)),.,T.R •• ■

"S'»«("<;^;.i.Kv.4r8, 24,.j:

131

3gS

(iOS
Bl»
272

; « L. J. y. i;

68(1 " '" J^-V.

•'■ Q. ii. wi';
Kx. .1 ; 1,;;,

:!!I7
5)1

374

B,'i2

' urn
I

313

2.'i8

829

724

39

428

(i24
494

2 I'. C.
f.

«47

bcxxii

TABLE OF OASES.

Mary CI«rk Homo v. Anderson, [IBM] 2 K. B. 640 ; 73 L. J.

K B. 806 ; 91 L. T. 457 ; 20 T. L. It. 6*1

MMon V. Aird (1»82), 51 L. J. Q. B. 244 ; » W. H. 522

». Barker (184:1). 1 C. & K. IW) .. ■• ■■ ■■

Ha.»r V. Br«wn (lM7ti), 1 C. P. D. 97; 46 L. J. C. P. 20a ; .14

X T 254 ; 24 W. B. :l«H

Manerene (Viscount) v. InUnd Revonne, [lOOOJ 2 Jr. It. 138, Ir.
M»»ey V. Burton (1858), 2 H. & N. 597 ; 27 t. J. Jlx. 101 ; .1

Jur. N. S. 1130; 115 R. R. 714

V. .IohnK.n(1810), 12Ka.te7.. .. ■• •■ ••

,. Morri., [1894] 2 Q. B. 412 ; fi:l L. ,1. M. C. 18o ; 70 L. I .

873 ; 42 W. R. 638 ; 58 J. P. 673 .. .. 192,

V. Sladen (1868), L. R. 4 Ex. 13 ; 38 1,. J. E". 34 ■ ..

Master., lie (18B9). 33 I.. J. Q. B. 14(1 ; 9 L. T. N. S. 733 ..

1. Child (1H98), 3 8alk. Wi .. ■,,,■■,„ A .,.•

Mather o. Bniwn (1876), 1 <'• P-ID. u96i 45 L, J. C. P. o47 :

34 L. T. 869 ; 24 W. It. 736 '■"■

,.. Km»er (1866), 2 K. & J. 636 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 361 ; 2 Jur.

N. S. 900: 110 R. R. ;150

„. Soott (1837), 2 Keen 172 ; « L. .7. Ch. 300 ; 44 R. R. 229

Mather.!/. Penfold, [1916] IK. B. 014 . ,. ;• ••

MathieBin v. Harrod (1868), L. R. 7 tq. 270 ; .18 I.. J. Ch. l,i!l ;

19 L. T. 629 ; 17 VV. It. '.til

Matti«on V. Hart (1864), 14 ('. B. 386 ; 2 0. L. R. 314 ; 23 L. J.

C P. 108 ; 18 Jur. ;18() ; 98 R. R. fi<18

Maurice t;. ManKien (1H.-.0), 19 L. ,1. C P. 152 .. ,.

May, Ex p. (1862), 2 B. & S. 426 ; 31 1.. ,1. M. C. Ifil ..
— V. O W. Hy Co. (1873), L. U. 7 Q. B. ;«i4 ; I.. R. 8 Ij. li.

28 ; 41 L. J. g. B. 104 ; 42 L. .T. «. U. « ; 26 h. T. 17 ; 27

L, T. 620 ".

Mayer ,•. Harding (1867), L. R. 2 Q. B. 410 ; 16 L. T. 429 ; l.",

U'. R. 813: 9B. &S. 27 n

Mayfair Property Co., Jte. [1898] 2 Ch. 28 ; 67 I-. J. Ch. 337 ..
Mayhcw v. Wardlcy (1863\ 14 C. B. N. S. 650 ; 8 L. T. 504

.■1,"|3, 49:^,
Mayor V. Collins (1890), 24 I). B. D. 361 j 59 L. J. (J B. 199 ; lii'

L. T. 326 : .S8 W. B. 349

Mecca, The(1894i, 64 1.. ,1. P. D. & A.40

Meoking ». Meeking, [1916] \V. N. 367

Meffffeiton t>. Groves, [1917] 1 Ch. 158

MefliM V. Shirley Loc . Bd. (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 441 ,

Q, B. 143 ; 53 L. T. 810 ; 24 W. R. 187 ; «> J. 1'. 214

.-..-. L. .1.

414

(1711

609

217
611

49(1

171
■.'l."j

. .609 ; 94 L,

MoUon, Re, [190U] 1 Ch. 841 ; 76 L. ,1. Ch

.64 W. R. 468 ; 13 Mans. 190

Mercantile Bank ». (Jladstone (1868), L. It. 3 Ex. 2:13; :i7 ^.
Ex. 130

Mercer v. Denne, [19<M] 2 Ch. .634 ; [1906] 2 Ch. 6.18 ; 74 L
Ch. 723

,.. Liverpool, Ac. Ky. (llHO, 72 L. .1. K. B. 128 ..

(M«. I
611;

Mercer.' Co.
Merchant li

Meredith v. I

ra R. R.

Merle, The (]

Merrick v. Li,

103 L.T

Merry»e«ther

MerMyDock,

22; 12 L

•fur- N. 8

". Gibb. (

Jur. 571 ;

". Hender

"9 i.. T, 69
". Lueas (
L. J. Q. B.

17.'

Wn^i^MMMMt^'^i^. ^ M

TABIM Of CA8E&

Ixxziii

323

70«
%4

Mercer*' C«i «• u ■

Jur N. s. r« ' " W. R. 1088 ; Vb b" v 's ■'• M- C

- 0- Turner, rigft-ti . „ • «• .i4 ; 48 j. p ^j^

ifn .. AJoai^ Mgg^f ■''•*'«, H. L. .. 2-W, 289, 326

ji-j-Q-B^^, 44L. T.Z%fi^:;^ '^j'p- ^- "••«; w '"

>™l'. Board „. MacO,,,, ■; ■• ' ' *" J- H («i4,

C. P. 385 31 lS""'}- (1874), I. ni„ ,•„.., .. 589, Ci,,

■"?■ Ky. V. Fooler ri«o,V . • ' ^* ' *' ^ T.

L T. 390 ; 42 W V^^J '^- t'. 416 ; 02 L Jn « - ■•

"P- Water B^n,- \f » = "T J. P. jjir i' f «• «• M.) ; ««

' ». Mette (1859) ■, S* ''• '"• ^SU ; 4 £ O B -V,? ^- J- Ch.
T- iV. S. 707 ■ 119 I* ~ ** J!*. a(i7 : •'« T r », "

172
fi31
423
01)1

(i;io

r>i

,4 . ('8"S), u E,. ^, . ^. j^ ^ .^.^.

jsex JJ, « p /iQo.v «*' ■• --...

■.04

371

' •• ■• 283

-j'tMi'ife,!.:

I\.\.\iv TABLK OF 0A8Ktl.

Migotd .'. Colvill (1878), 4 C. P. D. 233 i 48 U J. U. 1'. ««» ; M)

L. T. 747 ; 27 W. R. 744 ; 14 Coi C. C. 306 .. .. fK)6, Ulll

MUoh ». Kninkiu, [1»0»] 2 K. B. 100 flOK

MUe End Oiuidiiuu «. Hoare, [19031 2 K. B. 483 i 73 L. J. K. B.

6*1 i 89 L. T. 276 ; 97 J. P. 398 i 1 L. O. H. 732 .. .. 4»'.>

Milw t>. Bough (1843), 3 Q. B. 845 ; 3 0. & D. 110 ; 3 Rly. Cu.

668 : 12 L. J. g. B. 74 ; (11 K. R. 409 IIIH

V. Hutching., [IWW] 2 K. B. 715 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 775 ; 89

L.T. 420 I(i7

MiU V. Hawker (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 92 ; 44 L. J. Ex. 49 ; 33 L. T.

177 ; 2 1 W. R. 348 im

Miller, ife, 1 1893] 1 Q. B. 327 ; 62 L. J. Q. B. 324 ; 08 L. T. 367 ;
41 W. R. 243:67 J. P. 469; lOM. B. R.21 .. i;ti

«. Dudley JJ. (1898), 4« W. R. 806 XI

— V. SalomonB (186.3), 7 Ex. 475 ; 21 L. J. Ex. 197 6, 8, 20, .•ili'.l

400, 462, iiif'

Miller's Ca«e (1764), 1 W. Bl. 451 729

Mills V. Seott (1873), L. R. 8 g. B. 202 ; 42 L. .1. Q. U. 57 ; 28

L. T. 286 ; 21 W. R. 4:i8 Ill;

II. Wilkins (1703), li Mod. «2 74

Mills' Estate, J!e (1887), :h Ch. D. 18(i ; 5(i L. .1. Ch . 118 ; 55 L. T.

8«6 ; ,15 VV. R. 13:1 151, Ul'

Milnes V. Huddersfield (Mayor of) (1886), 11 App. C'aa. 611 ; 5ti
L. J. y. B. 1 ; 55 L. T. 817 ; M W. R. 7«1 ; 60 .1. V. 676 . . Wk

Milton i>. Faveniliam (1867), 10 B. & S. 548 II 4HII

Minehead Loc. Bd. v. Lnttrell, [1894] 2 Ch. 178 ; W L. .1. Ch.

497; 70L. T. 44«j 42 W. R. H«7 :kK

.Minet v. Leman (1865), 20 Beav.-278 ; 24 L. .1. Ch. 647 ; 7 Du

G. M. &G. 340 ; 1 Jur. N. «. 410, 692 : 1(19 R. R. 165 160, :iL'4
Minor v. London & N. W. Ev. Co. (1867), 1 C. B. \. S. 325 ; 2(i
L. J. C. P. 39 ; 2 Jur. H. S. 1168 ; 28 L. T. O. S. 104 ; 107

B.R.681 llll,r,wp

Minty ». Sylvester (1916), 84 L. J. K. B. 1982, D. O L'iU

Mirehouse v. Rennell (18.'»), 1 CI. « F. 627 ; 8 Bing. 490 ; 1

M. 4Soott68;J; 7Bligh N. 8. 241; ;)6R. R. 1.39 .. T

Mirfin v. Attwoml (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. :m> : ;t8 L .T. Q. B. 181 ;

20 L. T. 778 ; 17 W. H. 820 ; » B. * S. 414 :m

Mist V. Metropolitan Water Board (1915), 84 L. J. K. B. 2041 .. .Ml
Mitchell V. Aberdeen Insurance (\mnnittee, [1918] W. C. & Ins. C.

206, Ct. of Sess., Sco IW

0. Crawshaw, [liKX)] 1 K. B. 701 ; 72 L. J. K. B. 389 ; S8

L. T. 463; 67 J. P. 179; 20 Cox C. ('. 395 l.s:

V. Sinipson (1890), 25 Q. B. D. ISIt ; 69 L. ,1. O. B. 365 ;

6.3 L. T. 405 ; :J8 W. R. 605 im

Mitford Inion v. Wayland Union (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 164 ; M

L. .1. M. C. 24 ; 63 L. T. 299 ; .18 W. R. 6;i2: 54 .1. P. ::•: 'M
Mobb« V. Vnndenbrande (1864), 4 B. & S. 904 : It! L. .1. < l. )!.

177 ; 10 ,lur. N. S. 746 ; 9 L. T. 7(iO ; 12 W. R. 405 .. .",111

Mugg*'. Hodges (1750), 2 Ves. Sen. 52 .. .. .. .. \i'M

Mohuiujiiud V. Bareilly (1874), L. R. 1 Ind. App. 167 .. 14

TABLK or ,.A8KK

137.

Ixxxv

Sfi8

fi48

<i8S

MG
044

— r. Oanigee (180.1), 2n O i. r. • •• ' '^ ^- ^•
W. R. ti,J9 '' •"' «• B. D. 244 ; 69 L J "f, n •:

— o- Lambeth W w;.,i, n- •• ''••'■ <i- B- 305 ; ;«

ii;

L- T. 426, If y '■ ['""<3 A. f. 2/i:) . --,• ,•"■ V r- •^•0

=^'5 ; 102 H. arm. *■''• ""' •• -'< L. J fo ,,.:;, , ,•• ..

^t"B!^:;^r^,p..(i<«4,«,':i«|':^:j?;>

J3»
1«0

S20
tKi2
386

»7

037

081

720

48»
47r.

261

102
74

182
238

3)!l

.•M

"72
1/1 »4

084

.'i8u

528

■■Tt'

Ixxxvi TABLE or 0AIE8.

Momnv. Primer i824),2R*C. 720; 4D.&R283; S L. J.

^O. 8.) K. B. 146 ; 26 R R. 8Sr ••,„",,••„,•• «"
\. Parry (18Bfl), 17 C. B. 334 ; 96 L. J. C. P. 141 ; 2 Jur.

N. 8. 286 1 104 B. R 716 • •• •■ «»l

V. Thomi) (1S41). 7 M. & W. 400 ; 10 L. J. Ex. 126 ; 9

D. P. C. 228 ; 6 Jur. 294 728, 730

Moriih V. H»rrU (1866), L. R 1 T P. 1B6 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 101 ;

12 Jur. N. 8. 627 ; 14 L. T. '. 4 ; 14 W. R 479 ; 1 H. & R

338 ; 1 H. i& P. 30S .. 690,5m

Marine v. R>yal Brit. Bk. (1866), ; B. N. 8. 67 ; 26 L. J. 0 P.

62 i 3 Jur. N. 8. 137 ; 107 P i : '^* 283, 440

Morrall v. Sutton (1844), 1 Phi'. .>■■. , 14 L. J. Cli. 268 ; 9 Jur.

6,37 ; 06 R R 4:U 98, 281

Morrell ». Studd & MilUngton. [ i J13] 2 Ch. 648 4:i

Morrii 11. B»nin, [1918] A. C. 1, H. L. 70

„. Carnarvon C. C, [1910] 1 K. B. 840 j 70 L. J. K. B. 670 ;

102 L. T. B24 ; 74 J. P. 201 ; 8 U O. R 488 .. .. «»

». Howden, [1897] 1 y. B. 378 41iti

«. Mellin (1827), « B. & 0. 446 .. .. 378, 542, utiT

,». Wilson (1850), 5 Jur. N. 8. 168 Sh'

Morrison v. Gen. Steam Navig. Co. (1863), 22 L. J. Ex. 233 .. K,

„. Olovor (1860), 4 Ex. 430 ; 19 L. J. Ex. 20 ; 80 R K. 645 1(«

Morritt V. N. E. By. Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 302 j 46 L. J. Q. H.

289 : 34 U T. 040 : 24 W. R 380 £',

Morton V. Copclnnd (1866), 10 C. B. 617 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 109 ; 1

Jur. N. 8. i(7i> i:v>

V. Palmer (1882), 31 L. J. Q. B. 7 ; 45 L. T. 420 ; 30 W. U.

115 121

Mowiel «r. Middleton (1673), 1 Vent. 237 7W

Moies 0. Parker, [18«i] A. C. 246 ; 65 L. J. P. C. 18 ; 74 L. T.

112 -W

Mostyn V. FabrigHs (1770), Cowp. 161 ; 1 »m. L. C. 591 .. .. 2;:;

Motteram v. E. 5. Ky. Co. (1859), 7 C. B. N. 8. 58 ; 29 L J. M. C.

59 ; 0 Jur. N. S. 583 4411

MouHet ». Cole (1872), L. R 8 E.\. 32 ; 42 L. J. Ex. 8 ; 27 I.. T.

078; 21 W. R176 (112

Moul I'. Greenings, [1891] 2 Q. B. 443 ; 00 L. J. y. B. 715 ; K,

L. T. 327 ; 39 W. R 091 a;

Mounsey v. Ismay (1805), 3 H. & C. 480 ; 34 L. J. Ex. 52 ; 11

Jur. N. 8. 141 51, 5711

Mount V. Taylor (1868), L. K. 3 C. P. 045 ; 37 L. J. C. V. 323;

18 L. T. 476 ■, 16 W. R 8(]6 ?i<

Mountcashel i>. O'Neill (1850), 5 H. L. Cas. 9.17 ; 2 Jur. N. S.

1030 ; 101 R R 438, H. L. W

Mountifield r. Ward, [1897] 1 <l. B. 320 ; 06 L. J. Q. B. 240 ; Til

L. T. 202 ; 45 W. R 288 ; 01 .(. V. 216 ; 18 V. C. 0. 515 .. 2i-'
Mountioy *. Wood (1836), 1 H. & N. 58 ; 108 R R. 45:! .. 249

Mousell Bros, i: L. & N. W. Uy. Co., [1917] 2 K. B. 8.17 : K7

L. J. K. B. 82 ]:t5, 182, 183. 184. mM, 111'

M'Hlys i;. Leake (17«!l), 8 T. R 411 ?«

TABLE 0» OASES.

Ixxxvii

tAQg

Much WalthMi^, t> •• ,. •• •■ "^•'■W- B. 112; 30

••|«W.B."7','r('«»"U6Q.B.D.27i-;6«i:jQB J/«, IW

""^^^:rxa*K,,13C..l,;^;^«,.,^;^^'^
uoKipal Bldi. s«c ■•„ v" •■ .. •'•^''•216; 28

j^^;«-i.ss-,^iin/n^.yi^r.-ry?

■Thy, Be (1877), 2 O R "n «i- ■• . ' "*

- -• So^'mhLl R« i a'LVv,?^ ' ;* R- H 325 ■■ ••
l&r t Am. 742, IsVj.S'li. V^"!- «y. C,« ^wi';
3« W. n. ,^ «'«*). 2< y. B. D. 032 ; 6» Cj y "i, .^- M

7(«
SI2

3UH

298
2«.'j
671
6<JH

2M

.. fil7
••l.-i, 414

5«7

3*ifW3^«-':««=^W.g.«,^,,,,^^

Ixxxviii

TABLI or CAHBI.

I

NMh >. rinUy (IQOS), HI U T. 883 5!«l

Nktioiul Mara. Bank, Km P.. Bt Humw (IMO), IS Oh. D. 42;
49 L. J. Bulk. 88 ; 43 L. T. 36 ; 1« W. ft 848 i 44 J. P.

780 31,484

N»tion«l Tel«>liom Co. v. BtkmAimS] 2 Cli. 18« ; 82 L. J. Ch.

8»9; aSLT. 283; S7J. P.373 •UX

V. Kinnton-upon-IIiiU (190S), 89 U T. 2»1 ; B2 W. K. 211 ;

1L.0. B.777 4i:i

Nalion V. Anglo-AmerioMi Und Co., [1897] 1 Ch. 130 ; 88

L.J.Ch.Tl2! 76L.T.482; 46W.ll.17l «17

Netbitt V. Luihington (1792X 4 T. R. 783 ; 2 B. R. fil9 . . . . &;;
Natherlnnda Stauiiboat Co. v. London Corpontion (IWMX 68 J. V.

377, C. A ri27

Nethenoll v. Indix. Blind School (1870), L. R. 11 Eq. 1 ; 40

L.J.Ch. 2«; fclL. T. 723; 19 W. R. 174 (1.D)

Nettleton v. Burrell (1844\ 8 IScott N. R. 738 ; 7 M. ft flr. 35 ;
8 Jur. 1033; 2 D. & L. R98 ; 1 Lut R«g. Cm. 167; 14

L. J. C. P. .17 ; B« R. R. «S8 a;

New Gberhudt Co.. Jh (1889), 43 Ch. O. 118 ; 69 L. J. Cli. 73 ;

62 U T. ;»1 ; :)H W. R. 97 ; 1 Meg. 441 Ii;

New River Co. v. Juhnion (18)10), 2 la. ft El. 436 ; 20 L. J. M. C.

93; «Jur. N. 8. 374; 8 W. R. 179 17i

New Shsrliton Collieriee v. WeetniorUnd, [1904] 2 Ch. 443 n. ;

73 L. .1. Ch. .141 n liiT

New Windsor Corporation v. Taylor, [1899] A. C 41 ; OH L. .1.

Q. B.87; 79LT.460; «:)J. P.164 ;»i-,

Newby V. Colt'i Arm. Co. (1872), U R 7 «. B. 293 ; 41 U J. g. 11.

148 ; 2U L. T. 1(14 ; 20 W. R. 383 Il>l

V. Sims, [1894] 1 g. B. 478 ; 63 L. J. M. C. 229 ; 70 L. T.

105 ; 68 J. 1'. 2«:l 4(tl

Newcaatle Corpontion v. A.-0. (1846), 12 CI. ft F. 402 ; UU

R. R111,H. L 1S«, ,Vtt

!■. Morrii (1870), L R 4 H. L. 661 ; 40 L. J. Bank. 4 ; 2.1

U T. 660 ; 19 W. R. 2« 320, MG

Newington v. Cottinghnm (1879), 12 Ch. V. 725 ; 48 L. ■(. Ch.

226;40L.T. 58 (W7

Newman v Hardwicke (18:)8), 3 N. ft P. 368 ; 7 L. J. .M. C. 101 ;

8 A. ftE. 124; 1 W. W. ft II. 284 (»).-,, WW

V. Jonei (1886), 17 Q. B. 1>. 137 ; 66 U J. M, C. 113 ; 55

L. T. 327; 50 J. P. 373 liK), lit'

Newport Bridge, Jie (1859), 2 13. .1- E. 377 ; 29 L. J. M. C. 52 :

fijur. N.S. 97; 1L.T. 1.11 4.111

Truateea, Jix p. (1849). 10 i.ini. 346 ; 18 L. J. Ch. 40 ; I'J

Jur. 932 ; 80 R R. 88 1117

New'e Truatee v. Hunting, [1897] 1 Q. B. 007 ; 06 L. J. Q. li.

564, C. A L'H

Newion, *e, /i«TwoSolieitorsa90<l), 53Sol. Jur. 342 .. .. 4:W
Newton V. Boodle (1847), 3 C. B. 795 ; 4 D. ft L. 064 ; Hi

L. J. C. P. 135 ; 11 Jur. 148 X

i>. Cowie (1827), 4 Bing. 2:t4 ; 12 Mo<.ro 457 ; 29 R. R. 541 t»l

TABLE OF CASES,

Ixxxix

rui

-^v:£S;^V.£ .!"■• " ^ ^. Q. a..,, ,
__vf. R. sm:.^' ^ "• * N. 810; 31 L y E •• •■

""••PIK-Phllto Co „' T,Sj* L M2 ..

T^;W(i4»H:^,c.joj ^. ..

*n V. June, firrn o n/'. •• ' *"'• =*"*; «

664. .: . ^^'"iMLJ. Q.B l(io-», , • 2M

nwii, A, ri893i 9 n » -i. •• '"2; 71 L T.

"""rt^ The" rinni; „ ■• " ' * B- « : «9 L. T "

;:• ,^' (f888), 5 MorrSn'lf '" ^' «• ^'f . ^ ''* ' "»

"■ Umngton (18641 IB o„ • - " • "3

h-D. 47f?"o??:"-M»nchMt«rS *V D •• ■• en

182
874
348

247

107

278
2K

724

,;«4

540

, m, 810

MIOOCOFY nSOlUtlON TBT CHAKT

(ANSI and ISO TEST CHABT No 2)

Hi

Hii

m

]^

iM

1.8

mmn^

^ APPLIED ItVHGE

1653 Eost Mo,r, Sl.e

xo TABLE OF CASES.

X Lo;.d-...'ily in.'k'^MoU. B. of Wort» (18,-,,,), John. 40o ;
28 L. J. Oh. !HP9; 5 Jur. >. S. 1121 •• •• •,• ".

^- "^rri/S'Si^r^^iT^iriiNv^Sf :i!"i- ««

M U 147 1 4 Jur. N. S. (Wl ; 112 K. «■ «W

-1. liri T. T 444' .17 W. H. 2l)t) ; iWi.l. 1 . 1!«> ■■ , '"i''.
^ortlmV: w7*^'w; 'iV,0.;XW»),»Ch. 1. «2. ; llCh.D.
118 • li Oil D. 2(i8 ; 40 L. T. ii'.li ; 2i >\ . H. i l.i ..

i;i;„Xriffi^;|Sj| ^j^- Vii^ fii ^■''- "^^ '■

■>"■ 211 L T (i73 ; 22 W. K, Ido; 3 Hop. A^ O. lit ..

f^i^±^>^o:^r. 2Vuj:b.P.ik.; i«

_'J: t:"K IB. * C. 5M ; 3 D. & k:-833 : 25 R. ii.

911 I Ex l:W : IS .rur. «4 ; »8 R. K. 7il.i

N„.-fnt ;. Sn^tU (1«7«), 1 C. P. D. 433 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 0«7 ; 34
°T T «27 . 23 W. R. 117 .. ■■

133; SOW. R. 1«

Nunu'sEstotu, Jfe, llS'-^LlI^'i^ff''''

Nuttall ». Pickering, [I'JU] IK. B 14

Nutton V. Wilsjii (1889), 22 Q. B. D. 744 ; u8 L. J. Q. B. 443 , 37
W. R. 622 ; 53 J. P. «44

CiJtj

.".111

Mi
314

.■iiii
7111

7u;

2(15
(i73

102
."il).l
12,")
i:i

O.

liliL. .1. Cli.04!t;

Oakea ". T.iniuand (18«7), L. R. 2 H. L. 32.j

l(i L. T. 8()8, H. L.

()„ten.> .\"ty, [mO]3K B.278 .

(I.th before JuBtice»(lbll), 13 Reli. 131 „ .. ..

O'Connor o. Br»,l»h»w (18oOX 5 Ex. 883 ; 20 L .1. Ex. 2 . ..
Odell /V ;> (IS'fl). l'> Ch. D. "« ; 48 L. .(. B,ink. 1 ; .in L. I ,

3113 ; 27 W. R. 274

TABLE OF C',\8F«

I..,?; wsr ? ;■ '": " '■ '■ '"■ '"■'" '-■

-) Loiililen, /; , „ cru-ii r ■'.' •• •• "■ V. n.

,__ I^. T. 878 ,'i-.f W ", '. «9"- " ^''- ""« ' « L. J: B„„k;.„, . ,;.•
""'i'?;,"- I'.''?'«ijt"vv,„„. n"™,! ,-.■;> ,. .• ,• . _ •• .. • 2B7

3»r..,;.Q.B/'

rAi;i.

12

294

201

0!)

H07

120

424

«M3

;i43

, aw

463
249

504

84

9H
'M

7
"04

U T. 177 .. " "''I'- >-'«• 842 ; 30 L. J. p 7. "7' ••
■mt'a Case (1872) j/i) ii ('.'>,„■• ■• ..''''

™*,^ r ^ ^1 V'l?-,^^ '" ^«J ■' « L. J. i3. p. m : »8

- r.MiInwn (1887), 18 0 nil /-, •■ •• "no

-^ii!;S:^i^?j|"^'i^;4?^-^'^-«-''^

-riE.^': cfljiM App. c.; «2 ^43 Li'^ ^. ^?
r-«^/-.p..a7!^2^«o,,,,,,,^^;:-i37

I • « N. & M. 448 • -"' ^' '" ■'• K- li. 1«1 ; 2 H A \Y

;•■ Biirtielt(18:)4), 2Cr .t »f 'iv- " -

;■"'""''"'" (1S77), 47 L. J. CI,; o„7
•»*au„cler.(16<,7).lLd.R»y,.,:';'5s

JoS, IBi

IBfl
017

•■i72

•i L.

•r. Kx. 7(i; 4Ti','

2«

28»

l'\BL£ OV CASKS.

Owons r. Jone. (IRM), L. U. :) g. B 4fi!<;

18 1,. T :i.)7 ; 1" W. R. !>:<2 ; » B- A !>• 2'''
fl«<.|.« Patent, «.(18»8)- J" ''■ '^;^ ..■,^, 0^3
Oxford Corporation v. Wildgoose (IWW), .1 Lc*. -«

,fT L..). Q. B. LW;

:!n8, :i:i4

7'.» L. T. 123 ; tli

1'.

I-aciKc, The (1««4), :« L .1 P M. A' A. lit.; B. A L. ■>.:. ; 1»

.hmiN.S, nil; 10L.T.M1 ••
, ||18ft8] P. 170 ; 07 L. .1. P. D- * A

P,KldLIon"1luri»I Board ." Inland BeVunuo ■c'on,u,i»«ionor»
(1884), 53 L. J. Q. B. 224 ... ;;m-.fVK u'lUi "

PaiUtow Amiu. Amoc., .«« (18«2), 20 Oh. u. ,

_J* B;lua855):2«ifl;-n7 ; ■hu:a>.^^ 'u-n.s.

4i» ■ 8 w. K. SSI .. " „••, , ;■, ■.,;■

_ ,.. Pearce (1841), 8 M, * W. 0«7 ; 10 hJ.hK 4-14 ..

Paget l^ Foley (18:W), 2 B n«. N. C. (,,! ; o I.. .1. (-. 1 . -.'» .

Scottl2n; 2H.Hlge.:)-';42R.U.W« .. •. ••

Pain V. IJonshtwood (1890). 24 Q. B. I). .W ; •;» L. .1. «. C ,•». „

62 L. T. 284 , :i8 VV. K. 428 ; o4 .1. P. 4(,!l ; 11. to.M L. j ._

Pai,^!';;;; A> p: Hea-i. [1^97] i '^.i;- jf ^;'« '•• '■ '^- »• ' •' '•

Painler^ [i^ ».t a« Co. U8.«V. A^.I^4^. ; 5 r. .1. M. 0.

108 ; (i N. & M. 7;il! ; 2 H. AW . -•" ; /J '\ %*^,% , ~
Palliser k Dalo, [18H7] 1 Q. B. 257 ; Wi t-. .1.1}. B. 2.t(. ; .0 I-. T.

14 ; 4.-. W. K. 2»1, <J. A. .. ..,•■„,•,,,

Pallister ... (iravesend (1850), « C. B. . .4; 1« I- J- 1

Paln,er .; Metrop. Ry."Co. (1802), HI L J. Q. B 25!>

, . Snow, [1900] 1 Q. B. 725 ; 69 I-. .1. «. B. .)o« ,

199;48W. R. Ml; 84J. P.342 .. •■., .v^.,,.
V. Thatcher (1878), » Q. B. D. IMO ; 47 h. .1. M. C. o8 ; .U^

Paln^er'^^d; ^^'^ V}'nH»2xh Chib. 47" 51 L. .1. Ch.

104,
. P. :!38 :
KiO,

82 L. T.

•n

2M
•-'40

:ih:!
im

;m
mi

, Wii

lU

>i41

; 40L. T. 787; 40.1. P. 772

Pape o. Pape (1887), 2<J tj. B. D

Paradine
Parbury.

;199 ; 36 W. K. 125 ; 52 J. P. 181

76 ; 57 L. J. M. C. 3 ; 58 L. T.

D. Jane (1647), Aleyn 26 .. - - - ^„ .,.,
Ex p. (1861), 3 De G. I'. A J. 80 j^ 30 I,. .1. Ch. ol.i ;

Jnr. N. S. 503

4'l. T. 62 ; » W. U. 470

Pard.. V. Bingham (1889), L. R. 4 Ch. 73o ; J9 L. .1. Ch. 1,0

,. T. 4(i4 ; 17 W. R. 419

70+

m\

.")S4

,m
■.m<

47"
674

1,374

Parish i: Amman (1800).

29 I,. .1. Ch. 90

2«
2(i3,

TABLE OP CASES.
l"iill<(J»teIr.mC'o. ». CoHtps HK-riN r ..

13 L. J. c. f 105 TJiv m "■'"' • ^ «■="" -^■- h.«;m ■

MX) ; SI J. i>!'2!,',f- "• ^' S« : "» !'■ J. M. C. 14,) ; M I.. T
I'. London C. a, riDOll '•> V iJ' - . •

I'arkmsonv. Potior HMSr.ri ,'/,?' ' '^- "■ ^W**
arthencho ». M,«on (1774 Tchf.'V-^ ..

-S«t"^---t-«^ti^SV/!i^,w^.,^^ J

artrijg„. yayi„r(i6<;^, c;, „, ■■ •■ •• .. " '

W. I{. 347 ' '- • ''■ "■ ' * ''• aSU i ai L. T 2^8 • 'Si

['^"J;,K.B.l'2M,^'V'- '"""' ''^'»^"- Th^tru;, Ltd"

xciii

XCIV

TADLF. OF CA8E8.

P.y..o, K. p. (1841.1 r. D. & I. «:« ; 18 L. .1. Q. n. i»7 ; 13 J«r. ..^^

P.„^iS ;: ue,. a868.;-4 c. ii. N. ^ ii.4 ;• 2- u j. c. v.^*^, ^^^^

Pe,..i^*iS-(S^ 13 Q. B. D: 753 r53 U J. Ou^l ; .1 L- T- „^

_J;^^./^^b^i^ B. D. ^. ; .i '.. t: 3.^ . ;i« J. i^ ,,„

Pea^i«..ston;.w,«;i [im;ii]2K:i'.i •■ ;; ;; }^

Pt.i..liiu>ur The, [IIW*^ 1 • f' J, ^4 • 4 j,. j'. K. liizi ; 4 N. & M.
Pearaou. MoiTlco(18J4),^A..vji.o*, ■•■'. ..^^

Pearson, J(e4'„J ..,o' r.Viti 1! inr. -''"

-"^kii^oi-i-SilAuS,, 3 fi. * c::m : -k, U.i M. C.^
3ti ; 13 L. T. IJW .. ■• ^2 . 32 L. J."m. C. ISl ; «
_rNLtd"a'8«9XL.KVc.P.235; 38L..I,C.P.l..l; ^^_
P.atl^S834);iC.£ * R:422; 4L. j;Ex.28; 5Ty. ^^

Pecriil 'fljaS*')',} HlBi^fl Rm ;■ 1 U. iV. 348 .'i i! 7U

Pelhiun 1-. PlckerspU (1(8,), 1J_- f' ^,' ej j,. j. ch. 53, C. A. ;
Pelhai" Clinton v.Newcartlo, Duke (l.m;, .11- o.v . . .^^

P„„<tT'sV^l/a(182^r9S:^C:i34r4M..-K.K», .tec. ^,^,
Pe .ny I Li' Ry. Cu„ Be (1857) 7 15. * »• «»U ; 2« L- ■'• '^- 1- ,,

?SJ£S^1^SJ?Ji--p.352 :: 3
^&K^PiVil:i-^:tii:: :: :: ■■ ^^

217

cu

TAUI,E OF CASES.

— ". Sowell (nm^.^i w. jiK ,i/, ' ">•• * '-''' •• Traffic f,,,. ;io7
urk, „. Severn (j^„ 'J- '".».. .;• . -.

I'"™.K .■• Trail (1874) h { 18 E , 88""^'' ■.'■ "• ■^>'> ■■ ■

'"''f!"T.^r'"*'"'^'^-«-«-5"''^*<rr...r.-kci77.i,-,
->«ri^r'i7^»'^-w.bi3,l-,,,^;,,,,;„,.;«:.

— ,: Jack, ;i»n), f^ j;;'j/^ ^\- 1 ■<■<«; fllJ J. I.. 52.. ..■

-;•. U„rk (1857), 2 c. ,i.y"(,V / •■

- V. H(.|),v„o<l (182!)), 10 li .«. r "•«, -■;.

-;•■ Poland hm;i Li. fc^T I* T.. '• J«2 ; 2 R. k. :«;•,

.\ov

, f.27

.'Kill

<il7

82

4114

(KW
.'Mli

■"• L. .1. y. Ji, ojj .

"'■"' r- •'. (}. li. f,i2 ;

417

.•i(12

134
(184
572

.'wr.

(18!)

Ii8!j

li8U

B."i8

140

140

4.T
li-l.'l
210

10

.'1(17
:mt
«i;i

2«ll
.■158

; :I5

xcvi TABLE OF (JASES.

PhiUpotU T. PhiUpottt (IfWW), W t'- "• »« i ■» I'- ••• '^^ i'^'ij'4
Vhi^™'';. Hat^tt (1^), 1 C. >'. & «■«« ^ * ■•• J- ««• ™' 'a,?,'
l-|,.™f x'-Belmer Co.rif. (187«). ^L. J. Ch. llV :« lJ T. 40^^
PhvthianVV^'enJalJjlWlij 1 «■ «• :««'i <>« l'' ■'• *>■ ^' >'* ' '
Picklrf''.. M»S»ge (1«7«), 1 'K- B.' •■«» ;■■« I'- J- t^"- ™*

Pickerings .^W™"«'t'';^An^'*?!f\v^^^^ ''• '^ ' "'

T I r P 118 • 1(1 L T. • BO ; 1" " ■ R- *•"
_';; IfJliik L. B. 8 U. p. 48... ; 41.' L. J. 0. P. 217 ; ^1

Pictou (Municipnlity) v. (ieldert, [18iM] A. t. 024 ; tt» L. T. OIU ,
42W. R. 114; (13L..I.P. C.Ji •

Pierce .. Hopper (1720), 1 Str». '^tf ■■ ■• •■ , "'.

Piggott «. Kush (1836), 4 A. A; E. !»12 ; 0 L. J. K. B. 272 , t.
N.&M.37S: 2H. &W.2fl •■

Pike ». Hoare (178.t). Ede.i, 184 . .. V ™ V..- . ,":

„. Nicholas (18«»), h. R. 5 Ch. 2B1 ; 39 L. J. Ch. 43o , 18

Pilch"^; «'!"suffo-rd (18«ii), 4 R & S. '775 ; :« I. J.'m. C.'ilS ; io

Jur N. 8. 661 ; « L. T. 759; 12 W. R. 407 ,. ■• ••

Pilkington ;. Cook; (1848), 1« M. * W. «ir. ; 17 I.. J. Ex. 141 ..

?;;;i;;:i,/':!'s^;^J^ (i^li^Ex. m; 21 1. j/e. :m; 22

T I Ex 18 • * • ■ • ■ * "HM,

Pinkertm v. 'Eaaton (1873), L. R. Ifi £<,. 4'M ; 42 U J. Ch. 878 ;

29 L. T. 364 ; 21 W. B. 943

Piot,£xf,.(1883),48L.T.120

Pitman V. Maddoi (1H99), 2 Salk. 090

Pitt !■ Shiw fl821), 4 B. & Aid. 208

m» ;.. MilTar (T874), L. R. 0 Q. B. 380 ; 43 L. J. M. C. 96 ; ;W

Pla„cJ;."mh"m(1^7),4"Bi^„g.\c iV; 8-C.&P.68; V
Scott 242 ; 3 Hodge. 288;; 1 Jur. 823 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 44

Plan";. PoVta, (18911 1 Q. B. 256 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 33 ; 63 L. T.

730; 55 J. P. 277; 1 Fox 206 •• ■•

Plasterer Co. v. Pari.h Clerks Co. (1851), 6 Ex. 630 ; 20 L. J. ti.

362 ; 15 Jur. 965 ; 88 B. R. 413 ■•

Piatt V. Sheriffs of London (1650), Plowd. 35 ^ • • ^ • • •""•
Pletts ». Campbell, [1895] 2 Q. B. 229 ; 64 L. J. M. C. 22u ; 7.i

L.T.344; 43W.R.634; 59J.P.502

221

;i7ii

32K
4114

I2ri

212
7lh!

71li
:t4;i

'<Vi

40:i

72(i
242

4il7

1«»

H

2.*ir>
rvt4
4riii

471

:i50
419

4W

TABLE OP CASES.

tovi;

riillll«to«<l Bel. i,f \V„rl<. „ H I

«« ; 12 ,liir. 4-Jo ' '" ''■ •'• "snk. Ill ; 14 l ^

uii»foriI .•. Walt,,!, /iii;u\ T "r. •• ■. ' "

'pe ». Tuarla (I874) r, r ,7,' „ • ■• .. '

?":?fe^in^i>)..».i.,.;...^ ^^

.•B7
uDS
474

SIB
237
B.III

.•)U

i.'71

2iH

65»

'"^C- n; P ^"'R- 7V "• '^^ «» ^ «" !•■ J- 0. P. 225-,
Ti Oo. «,. Pl„li,p cjo^n, „ _," ■• _ ..

142

134

12,357

I* T^ *' ' '** >*. K. 7flfl ' "" «■ t*' V. i*. wfi ■

™ I'/il^.'-J^' (^«o> « BI.V, I,, c. ,,,•: „ , .. ^ .;

:|^o««o)..'<,.„.b.5«f.4«L..;j.„;^,.'.. 50,1

P- 200, H. U ; ■^"2 ; 80 L. T. 5;« : 47 W. KBm, .»

'». »2, lai, siii,, (j(,(,

117

itoviii

lADI.K

f>F CASKS.

TA'-i

ml A. !'• ■*'*>

on li. .1. <!■ "•

:m*

411

,,

71

. K. 11.

711 ; i"."> I'-''-

I

Vralt 1'. Mftrtiii. liy I - "^^

Vroctl! "•'i'"""»'>' (l*!!'i'A\^U ■ 10 0 rillW ; 44 L. .1. C.P. 3Wi ;
l>M,ticer.Umdn,,(lWr.).L..K.l't<..'.

:t;l L. T. --'.-.I ; '-'•• « • ''; '''.".'.nm' 73 L .1. ' "■ "74

.•niici! 1'. > . "■ \'"V'vra.)7\ •IKuM. 4rKl : 27 U. H. 108

..„__. M.inwnTinU (181";. ■' "•*>

liM, '.>:vi

.. 2Ki

.. i.">;i

g90, 400, 4«.
517

Li. .1. V- '"•'•, '

1 Mmnon iri ■■ , „ ;: o,. . ,11 I, J. M. 0. 1)1 ; •

i:u
II

51L.J. Ch.940;31
ricklM(l«05\36i'-Jlj>'-V

Q„art.HiUC.,.,yMl««2),21Ch.D.042._Ji

yuiltcr... M»!Jf«'»|l^^{(",.^'"..

yui.Uon». Br>toU_%or)(18,4).L^^K. - I

'^"'■?s?rwtT.i.2-

22 W. U. 4:14

1(15
7:11

311;

61L.J.M.C.«;i; ^^
12.-1, 4'.»)

KM; »J«r.N.b.8«0 V, ^'b.118; 4,S U J. Q. B.7:!;

TAULK OF LASEB.

"" u't n"H V**'- " '^■•"- ''"'• •■*"' ' "'•' I-' •'• »'• '•• '^' i "••'

""^i:Mx;'ij^r}^^ii- " «i- "• 'V . 4;.L J. o; K if,

indaJl, Ll,l. .■.■ilrili.h'.v An'.micm.'sh.,., t'o.(IIKli), Tit. J.ch.

'^''™°n. ^■i';^- ('«-«). 1 Mont. .(I'irArt'h. til

'"It'Jv. U.*2i!r" *'!"'"'• '- "■ * ''• '■• W /••Wr-T. ••: I'. «t •

(loliih i>. Milni
.17W. It. 2(ia
pier V. IxMiJon Tramwnv" ('i

:t«Mi(ir,.r.:i«- '

'i.i| 2 ch.rm; (I- i;. ,1. ti.'.

lull, y/«(ii)ir)), ni i,. T ii:w ■""'•

^femT'S!; 'A^'l^; «■ »• "•■^«« ^ ii '- .'• «. B. OK , ;«

nior V. lUyner, [IIHM] l Cl,. irii"; 73 h .1 Cli' 114 ■■ '''*

.cl K. Amlomnn (1884), 13 y. B.'d. 77li • n-'V" I itu o„V

"3 L. J. (J. a 532 ; r>i L. i K, ; .•li'w: K Oil;, Vj. i\4:; ■

■ ». Edwonla (18«<), 17 c. II. N. S. 245 ; M L .1 (■ !> 11

■l28YMt'KV#''^l^-''-*"-''' «''''■ •'•'••«l^'«7L
r. Storey (mi), 0 n. AN. 43;)'; .-i.) i'. .1. M.' c Uu""'
U- V. Conquest (1802), 11 C. H. X. s. 47<l

Uhaw 1.. Balden. (1811), 4 Taunt. ri7

Jckah, The (1790), 1 C. Kob. 2.iO

U J. M. a'^ro."'"'""' "■ """ '^"'■-^' ^- "■ • '^- "• 433 ,
l/'kb^Jiis' * *'"'™"'"'' In«"'™"ce Co. (liilS),
1'. Farr (1817), B M. & S. 121 i'l8 H. R .■('»•"
irii, Re (1878), (i Cli. D. l.« ; 47 L. J. CI. 17

Tr.'^n^T *■'*""'• ' '^^ ^- °- *" • ^^ ^ ■'•*'• c"«5 ;

r. Muller (1882), 8 Q. ii. J>. 03(! ; 01 L. .1. M C M
I. Ingham (1854), 3 E. & B. 880 : .'is L J M C ^,(1
. h. U. 1495 ; 1 Jur. N. S. (11 ; D? uT A. sij ' ''■/"''

. T.
liw,
284,

41

. 84

39

ai

191,

soix

FAllK

.•l-)7

<li)7

225

11:19

mi)
213

of 12

Kill

41 Nt
147

, 101
!l!(

!I2

21(1,
(i!l.l
u(l.'j

ni

"a-
f.45

178
7(14
52!»

328

638
37,1
444

1(10

490
180

515, 587

a TABLE OF OABCT.

ii..,.i...Nu.t(iKiK.).i4.Mi. »•;;'«';,;•»''••'•" "■•■'" M"'"'!';

■ tt. WiK^ini* (llw.i). '•' ^' '*• J^- "■ —

7 L T. 4*-':i ; II W. H. UM , ; ,. I'l' .-.i .'(ii i t

R«„,„;. .' ill.nJlMIl 1 I II II. IV>-i ■■ «■•'> •'•■'• y- »•■'"' • '" ''•^■

" \\„.|.,. (1W13), 1 H. A c. 4:«; :» I-

ll.^i^t U.'s.'si..ro., «. <1H7H), H rii. I). 75

w. It. 4ijr> ■•, ,, ■• y ,"

.1. M. f. i*l !

:w' I,. T. "hi ;
{•'.'v. -ii

II)

211

Ui.((Wit U. S. Nl..ro», n« vin.n,, r. ^,

\v. It. 42r> •• ■•, ■• ^ [■■ I ,."|i .>./' (imi

_-rwilt::a«;:^'ii4 i..^:M.r:;».; 7n..T.i.M ;;. w. .,;• ^^^^

. 1). iiiit ; wl I.. .1.' I'll. «141 : ti:''

noi«!i<a'nl ;:o..ya.". nno,. (fA«.), u .v,.,. .-• 4«.
„>.-U^Vi^i^L"u."^".'"^->'-^-'^''-^
"^""^fV^^Tu^lm

Ex. 89 ; 1» h. T. iCU ; 111 «• U. H,i .j,,^

R. ,. Abbot (17811), PvuK. 5a:l^ __^_ .. I ■■, J, •;. , . -„ ^^Y • ■

4 4l«*, "pill

45 L. J.M. ('.411; :«

4211, 4;i!l, 441. Hi

.. li:.

; 18 L .1. M. C. 81

. Adam. (1888), 22 y. B. D. im;;
903; M.I.P.377; KH-uxt- ■"

AdainKii (187B), I Q- »• I>. 21(1

I; T. 840 ; 24 W. K. 260

. Adlard 182B), 4 B. & C. 772 ..

Aikin (171151, 3 Burr. 178i)

1= X'«TJ2-*^« i^^ M.'c: v«7 10 ...

N. S. !l«l; 110K.R.8;!B

. Alien (1812), IB Ea-t ;).•« ,•• ■• ■ ,, ,••„ . oj;

(1872), I.. R. 1 »'• 0. R. ;illi 41 U J. M. I . .1, .

L T «"* 1 20 W. R, 7r.« ; 12 Cox I.e. 1!M

Allenu»le(178«),3T.I{.:W2 .

All SiiintK (Dell.y . (1810), 13 Ewt 14.1 .. .• •■

All Saint. (WiKan) (I87«), 1 App. Ca.. I.U ; L. K. •• H- ».

3"7 • 3.-. L. T. ;181 ; 25 W. R. 128

latl

liTl

1121

21>

327 ; .»" »'. »• ■'"^ ' *" —
— AmnthiU (1824), 2 1! & C 847 " : ■ „
AnJereon (18B9), L. K. 1 C t- H.l I •« I;. •!■ M-

v. 12 ; ri

h. T. 400 ; 17 W. R 208 ; U L'

TAIILK or CASES.

1^ T. -.l-.-J ; ,v, ,, ,, ^„ '■ --" . HI r,. .1, M. <■. M;, ; „-
Aiit.,„,.|i(i,»„,,_.„j , ••

■"": TH a It. 442 "'• '" ''■ •'■ V. It. M; 1,1

Armagh (.\rfhl,,,.)(l7a2VHtr,.'>.lii

i.'t'" ('"P- " M,«l. 144

Au.lly (17.),)), s,||<. r,2,i ••

..ll..y (1800), Ku,. .V, ,1 ,

:z!^7, (]?;?«). -''-nn4,!.,

,-—(1840), I2A. &E. 227-

•«i2 i o ,;ur. ,X)7 • ■■" ' • "• V

d

4WI

' li.'.f. M.'c.

1207

'">f-J,'(;. li.';n; ri'.&i).

2112.. ■'■«•">; ,11.,.). M

— I|«rn.t(1708), lS»lk.;t8;i

— "•toman (ISM), 8K A- l< r,iu" . . " ., ■

— HHiidc-dsaS), Cr„.J„„ 4, •■

H.-.8
2W, 2.VI

18, H7«
2<i
.. 2I«
10
'108, 070
82. 01
.. 708
■ ■ 220
■• 407
•Mir.
107, 170
740
241

2*1

a->

707

lli4

42.-I. 441
4i>L.,|. M.c,

- H,„dc. (isas). Cm. Jac. 41 '■

t^teK'^«----M.^i.i

~ iie&utiv ntt^MW ij ... .. ._

/.. ,;.

N. s. stt , no H. a V4

-llea..oy(|820), U..t|{.4„j

lie amy (182;,) j „ • i- 181

- Belton (1848), 1 1 g. n -l^.r-K ^■

'■'» ■■ 72 ,f. Si • "• -™ ■ '" I'- •'■ S. B. 041 :

•'* tiur.

ri04
10

707

l:i
081

80
400

,'180
042

240
4«7
4II!I
12

i7L..y.

fl21, 078
08 h. r.

.. 40,1

ou
R. 1

18 L. .T.

.. 43, arri,

TABLE OF CASES.

().sl(23; 7W K 2lM.; iMlt C,.4 . .. •

— Bertnind (18«7), I- B- 1 P; I" '''' J,,'",' « ^ 4(»

-Bi?5(1898),42Sol.J.397 .•

-Bi^i-I^h-'^IH'CM 32R.E.ii2 v. •• •

M C 21ti ; 13Jur. H54 ..

Sess. Ctts. :!70 ; 2 D. A; L. If • » J'"'- "'' "

— Blues (1885), 5 K & B. ^n o'if R 'lIlT. • 7<l L J K. li.
_ Board of Education, [IfllU] 2 K. B Ito , >.>^^ •>■ i^- ' ■

o«5 ; 102 L. T. 578 1 74 J. f • 25« i %%^\^? & L. J
_ Boiler Exiilorion t-"™""- [i?",V' iin ' ..

O B 544 ; «4 L. T. U74 ; *> W. K. 440

_Boud(lS:J7).0A.&K905
_Boteler(1864),4B,\&.'J5!»

_'BoulVbee(k«0.4A.&E.498;«N.*M

6H2 • 3» W. K. 207 ; 1'5 .1. P. 373 ; 17 tox L. i^. i»i

— Bowman, [I8»8],iy- !»■«>:' ;;

iQ T T *«'.4 ■ 1ft W. R. 816 ; 11 Cox C. C. Hti •■ ■■

^u u U nfimi Ml C C. 268; 8 Cox C. 0. 30!) ; 29 L. J.

— Bradford (186U), iwin^.^.^>~, .^w . a W R. 531 ..

J^^l^{^: ^ Q 'l^K-;^ I^- J- M. C. 2«> ana 3
Cj. B. D. WI7; 48L..1.M.C. 5

24:1
(iii'.i
(Wl
(in;:

110

K\H

480

1(h;

IKT
4ST

;!:iL.J.'k. 0.101; 12W. K.
. 26 ; B L. j.

3 Co

5:'l

.Ml)

i;ii

Imw
441
24«
4!r,l
472

2:«

485

;u:i

4«
132
34li

TADLE OF CASES.

Br!ce(JHai),J{..vjl4,,o ■ " .- :U

-«ro<lnl>b(lsiB),,ic..tP57r- - - •■

■^^^i^^P ■■■ :: :: ••

S,f':"/2«),2Stra.«7»' ••

; lOJur.
'WS, "12,

-■■ '"i
17 Jur.

cm

, .'i42

4»7

IM
217

lOK
723

18!l
Hu
KU
470
574

71;i
7(J!)
370

— (18.t»), 8Dowl. 8«. •• •• .. 237,

**. Kl^^^■«'■•^^«^'■■'•'^B.l34;5.„.^,«
w:&«•«•^««V72I,.•..K.B.,8«;•«„^;■,rl««•■.■

irew (1861), 20 L. J. M c 4i'„ ••■■■•

2!«
17!t
153

42li

645
441
«3«

532

64;i

254
l.iS

:m

(ioS
B81

w.r,Ka.'ij'«'::»'.-«,.ic.r.»;ii

2C4

4
33;j

314

CIV

R. V

TABLE OF CASES.
Cha„ircU(187W,L.K.10Q.B.587;44L.J.M.C.«4

''6JapS^na838),8C&;P^B68 -. •• -

,-.L.li„/'iTT11 Burr. Sot. I/. 7"

; 32
18, Ki7

2; [2
IW

."i74
.-iCIl

4li«, 4WI

Charles (1772), Burr. Set. C. W« ■■ ^ j „ c. 181 ;

(;harle.worth(1851), 2 L-M- *'•"';

^^iet\e*W9), is « B- % . 1 o.- & D.'l«7 ; "w L- J- „„.

Cheltenham (1841), 1 Q- B. 4t)7 ■ i " i5o_ a;,;

M C. !» ; B5 R. B. 321 , ^- „ ,A1 W

Chert.«y JJ- (1W8), «,^s^», Ws Q. B. 344; 42 L. .1.

Cheshire Line. Coram. (18-3), b. K. B <.! ,,,„

M. C. 100; 28 L T. »«» , .y g. & E. 209 ; 29 L. J. Q. B.
Chiche.ter(Bi8hopof)(18o»), if-"- i:,.!

25 ■ B Jur. N. S. 120 •• •• • 4lii<

Child (1830), 4 C. & P. 44i ■• ■■ 2 L j. M. C. :«

_^CiSiurPort. JJ."(188«Cl7 ^.-B. I>.-i91 ; 0-0 L. J. M. C

156 ; 34 W. B. 789 .. ,,-J«..n .vj J, J. Q. B. 28 ..

ir!i!!ifllSif 25«?tD"Sf5^' J «: B.'i29; «3L.T.

.J'^'tw Sb. 273V HI V- Q- B. 337 V «•! I- T. i:« ;

*" '"'a^r i4<f&. d: «l5"°4 U .tVq. b"330; 52 L. T.
— ^Sw!'A.7:«0;49JP.407

:3',fJ

- -Ill
;«2, :w4, k;

I^S::;^^''^*^ 23L..:;..B.133; ic.L.K.
947; 18 Jur.378 • ** - - ■ '" »

y^'oL.n'imyH cox C."C. 4lT 18 L: T. 489 ; 1« W. B.
--CMka7i«)),3T.U.319 ..

-SS!r(5^r?^Q^^'^o^-'-*'-'^-^«^'

721 ; 83 R. H.B19 ■• ;• ,•, y.C. 22
N. S. 311; 7 W. K. «2

1*

509

m

.. 5T3

m, »<

15 .lur.

; 5 .lur.

.. ill

R. 0. Cou8in» (18

Coward (la

Cowper (181

L. T. 583 ; £
Cox (1769),

— Orawshaw (:
88 ; Bell C.

Crake (1774

— Crowan (18f
L. J. M. C. a

Cubitt (1888

L. T. 638 ..

— Cumberhind
(1838),

— Cumberwort]

— Cunningham

— Cutbusli (176
— --(18«7),:

— Damarell (18i
— ^ Darlington S<

— Davie (1837),

— Davis (1783),
(1833), 6

29; 39R. B.i
(1863), 2

— -—(1870),!

— Dean (1843), )

— Deaville (1903

— Deiehton (184.

— Be Mamey, |1

— DeMatto»(18;

— Denbyjhire JJ

— Denton (1852),

— Depardo (1807,

— Derby (1694), i

— Derby JJ., fig

— Derbyshire JJ.
(1758), 2:

— Diclienson (186'
N-.S. 1076 ; no

' — DiclEinson, [19]

— Dixun (1814), 3

— Dobbins (1883),
— - Dolierty (1887),

— Doubleday (186
■— Dov(,(I820), 31
— _Doiv|i„g (1857)^

-- Downes (1789), i

TABLE OP CASES.

cv

— Cox (1759), z Burr. 786.. 70

■fpaWifsV, 0^3?! ^ ■■« ^- ^- ^' ^ » w. K. *^

■CrokB(1774),lCo;,;.2S • •''^* „.,

■CrowBn (1850), 14 0. n aai ."i m " c ■• ■• -'KZ, D«t
L. J. M. C. 20 ; 13 Jw TifST = ^ '*»"»««• Cm. 663 ; 1» *

Cubitt (1889), 22 O B n flw" re ;• •• •• .. 401
I-. T. 638 .. ^- ■ "■ "^^ i M 1'- J. M. V. J.12 ; 60

Cumberland (1803), 3 BV&pi54 " ■ • - ''OB

--(1838),4A.&E.«95 ■ ^48

Cumbenvorth (1836), 4 A. & EWl ■■ ■ " ■ *'■»

Cunningham (1804), 6 Eaat 478 •• 628

Cutbujli (1768), 4 Burr. 2^)4 W-'

— -(18«.), L. B. 2.}. B. 379" " •■ •• 626

Danarell (1867), 37 L. J. M c 21 '" '■ " • ^

Darlington School (184S), 14L J f I ■;.<•, ■• •• 2-'

Dav,e (1837), (i A. * E S?! ^- ^''^ ■ ■■ 628, 842

Davis (1783), 1 Leach 271 " - 114, 122, 5.)2

^^Tk'^ * ^"- -^l ■• 2"N. * M. 34»; 3 U J. M. C. ""'
(;|63), 22 L. J. M. "c. 143' •• 464

— (1870), L. R. 1 c. c;r ^2 ■• 22

aean(1843),12M.&W..^'^^ " " ■• 31.484

J<i»ville(1903),72L. J. K b"272 304, .fBa

taghto„(1844),13L.J.dB 241 ■■ •• •• fiOO

eMarney, 1907J1K.B.388 "8

te Mattes (1836),-'7C.*P.7H8 ■■ •• •• .. 19U

tenbyshire JJ. (1803), 4 East 142 " - •• 266

^nton(1862),21I..i'.M Ci67 " •■ • " ^"^

Bl»rdo(1807), 9R. R.693 ^ 729

erby(i694)_sti„ 3j,p •• " •• ■■ .. 2«5

erbyjj., ri9i7]2K. B.8O2" " ••25

lerbyshu^ Jj. (1846) 7 Q 3 .. 424

— (1758), 2 Ken. 299 • - 13

icken8on(1867),7E &B Ml', o.- ;■ T .-■• •■ ' •• 2.'t7
S.1076; 110R.R ^2 ^^i 2bL.J.M.f.204; 3Jur.

ickinson, L19I7J 2 k. B. 393 •• "-SS

iiiun(1814). 3M A- « 11 ^ ,, ■■ •• .. .. <*!
V. M. A h. 11 . 4 Camp. 12 . j5 jj jj .^^ •■ ^ %

Jbbins (1883), 48 J. P. 182 l»o'

Aerty (1887), 16 Cox 306 " " ••t42

rableday (1861) 3 E. & E 60i " 178

'v«(I820),3B.&AId!^596 ■■ •• •■ •• 695

;'vl..,g(1867),8E.&B.605r27L.;J:Q.B:28; li2H.R, ^**

wnes (1789), 3 T. R. MO " " ■• <18
300

U'M

cvi

TABLE OF CASES.

R. B.D'Oyly (1840), 12 A. & E. 139 ; 4 Jur. 1050 ; 4 P. & D. 52 j

64R. R. 553 I'l-''

Dunne (1813), 2 M. & S. 201 m<

Uuniley (1832), B A. & K. 10 ; H. * W. 9 ; 6 N. & M. .•):« wr,

Dyott (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 47 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 104 ; 30 W. H.

799-, 47 J. P. 54 •-'«

Dyson, [18941 2 Q. B. 176 ; (13 K J. M. C. 124 ; 58 J. 1".

528 ; 70 L. T. 877 ; 42 W. R. 520 ; 1 Mannoll 283 .. .. I '.17

EMtlxiumo (1803), 4 &«t 103 i",

■ Ea»t London VV. W. Co. (1852), 17 Q. B. 512 ; 21 L. J. M. C.

49;2E. &E.447 '"'"l

. ^ Eaton (1787), 2 T. R. 472 : 1 R. R. 438 m

Edmiiudscn (1869), 2 K. & E. 77 ; 8 Cox C. C. 212 ; 28 L. .1.

M. C. 213 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 1361 -VIT

EdwaiiU (1829). 9 B. ft 0. 052 IKI

(1«M), 9 Ex. 028 ; 23 L. J. Ex. 42 ; 18 Jur. 384 ; 2

C. L. R. 590 ; 06 R. R. 880 2M,M»

(1884), 13 Q. B. D. 58« ; 53 L. J. M. C. 149 ; 51 h. T.

586 "''^

Ein» (1864), 6 Q. B. 501 IT

Elmsly (1834), 2 Lew. C. C. 12B 4117

Ely (1850), 15 Q. B. 827 ; 4 New Seas. Cas. 222 ; 19 L. .1.

M. C. 223 ; 14 Jur. 956 ; 81 R. R. 822 (EK

Erdhcini (189(i), 05 L. J. M. C. 176 Mf

Ewex (1804), 34 L. J. M. C. 41 ; 11 L. T. 480 ; 13 W. It.

18fl ^'-t-''

(1792), 4 T. R. 591 ; 2 R. R. 470 .. .. .W,, tifll

E«8i \ C. C. Judge (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 704 ; 5(i L. .1. Ij. H.

315 ; 67 L. T. 643 ; 35 W. R. 5U ; 51 J. P. 649 .. 708, 71"

Evans (1890), 54 J. P. 471 4;;!l

,ri896]lQ. B. 228 ; 65L. J. M.C. 29; 44W.R. 271;

60J. P. 39 iW

Everdon (1807), !l East 101 4:'i

■ Everett (1852), 1 E. & B. 273 ; 22 L. J. Q. B. 3 ; 93 R. li.

i:« -'I':

Eye Corporation (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 271 ; 2 D. & R. 172 ;

1 B. & C. 86 ; 23 R. R. 270 4:91

Eyre (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 487 ; 37 L. J. M. C. 159 ; IS

L. T. 511 ; 16 W. R. 7.''>4 ; 9 B. & S. 329 .. ■ .. .. ite.

Farewell (1744), 2 Stra. 1209 M

Farmer, [1892] 1 Q. B. 037 ; 01 L. J. M. C. 65 ; 06 L. T.

7.10 ; 40 \V. R. 228 ; 50 J. P. 341 ; 17 Cox C. C. 413

Farrow (1857), D. & U. C. C. 104 ; 3 Jur. N. S. 107 .. 4»l I

Faversham Fishery Co. (1799), 8 T. R. 352 ; 4 R. R. 091 .. 7iH |

Fawcett (1808), 11 CoxC:. C. 306 4i(i,44i

Fell (1830), 1 B. it Ad. .•WO ■-Mil |

Ferrall (18.50), 2 Den. C C. 51 ; T. & M. 390 ; 20 L. J. .\l. f.

39; 15 Jur. 42 TC |

— Finnis (1859). 1 E. * E. 936 : 28 I,. J. M. ('. 201 ; 6 Jiir.

N. S. 791 : 117 R. R. 630 342, 411 |

R.». Pitohi
L. J. 1

Fitzro

«2 L. i

Pletoh

24 L. T

ford (;

■ Fordha

3 j 52 li
' — - Forrest

I'onikei

1. T. 40!
Francis
French (

Fretwell

C. 0. IS2

Frost as

S'yliiigda

Gale (187

628 ; 13 c

— Ganz (18a
592 ..

- Gardner (]

— Garrett fll
106; 23i

— Giles (182C
— ■ Oiiiyard (1

Ooo ..

,S.'""<"8ani

172;]5Ju,

— <'lover(18l

~ '™"'"n (188
»<2; 63 J p
Gonld (1704)
Jjravesend (1

— Great Bolton
''rest Faring,

— Great Salkeid
— 'jreat Yam,,,,

r;- 5 By. CI*
— rJ -By-Co.
<»reen (1861),
I Jur. 128

~2S*^"° (1837),

'■reenland (180
''■ J- M. C. 37 ■

TABLE OF CASES.
K- ». Pitohie fi887) i n r «

■ *o^t (irm) ;) T n .« , • ■ .."■"»■» I- J. M. f.

evil

-Vi "-^ «■ R. 281 ■ "■ '^ '-• ™ ; a P. .t ]

— • *oiTe,t (178!)) ;) T n -ii , •■ " ' " '^ •'• M. f.

^ T. 407 ; 23 #. R ,i,„, '^^ '^- R- iOO i 44 L 7 M Z/
■ Francis Mijn', i «; '™ . . ' ''• •'• M. (■. (« . ;„

• ^'^; iisL. t;

««le(]876) Of, ^i'^-*C. 4;J8

-,«;">;-. (1848,^- 4:^',-<«R.R. 27 ;: - ..

- Olover (1814), R.R ^^- ■■ . * ' ^" ^- J- M. f.

- Gommrtz (18471 0^,™* .. ■ •• .
•^jj2 R. 'ir&9 <J- B. 824 ; 16 ^ j ■• .. ;

fmnJm, (1889),^ n H n ,. ■ •• ' ' " •'>"••

f rest Bolton as/ j"* Ad. 240 .- • •

•;featFaringdon,1822l i'S'-'-y • "

W Salkeld 0817) T'm * * f^- 541 " ■

riL^'«^U2'L"g:'/-^874^^ .,i_^..^^

r!"°^-^).«A..K«8,i^,-^:^;--f

- (1852), 17 OB -oV „ ■• ..' • '^'l ; W ■ VV. * u.
roojiand (isiV^- L r 'Vr^V^- •'• M. C. i;,; . .^j -.

409
13»
081

1-1)

Ofi7
«4,5

4!*4
4tl(i
10

4»0
S«4
ISO

4»I

2r,u
110

472
«10

237

2;)2
482

204

4»3
•• 712
'i89, OHO
fi«0, r,B4
•• 14Ji
■■ 217

■• lao

•• 429

4;f«

705

SiJO
025

308

eviii TAULU OF (jase^^.

R. V. Gregory (18;«), 8 B. & Ad. 535 ; 3 L. J. M. 0. 23 ; 2 N. &

M. 4f8 71.t

QriffithB, [1891] 2 Q. B. 143 ; 60 h. J. M. C. 93 ; 31) W. R.

719 ,m

Griniwade (1844), 1 Coi C. C. 85 ; 1 Den. 330 ; 10. & K.

M2 4HH

Gweiion (1789), 3 T. R. i;« 78, !M

HodAeld (1870), L. R. 1 C. C. 25.'! ; ."t9 L. J. M. C. 131 ; 22

I<. T. B«4 ; 18 W. R. »55 ; 11 Cox f. O. 674 4WI

Haigh (181S), 3 T. R. 037 707

Haines (1821), R. & R. 451 4«7

Halifax (1831), 2 B.& Ad. 211 I'lli

Hall (1822), 1 a & C. 123 ; 25 R. R. 321 lir,

— (1828), 3 C. & P. 409 17!l

. [1891] 1 Q. B.747 ; 60 L. J, M. C. 124 ; 04 L. T. 394 ;

17CoxC. C.278 710,714

Hammond (18S2), 17 y. B. 772 ; 21 L. J. Q. B. 133 j 85

R. R. 674 IIS

^ Hampden (16;J7), 3 Slate Trials 1235 4riil

Hamstall Ridware (1789). .1 T. R. 380 (14,-,

Hanscm (1821), 4 B. * Aid. 519 .imj

Hants JJ. (1840), 1 B. & ^ .. 634 ; 9 L. J. M. C. 109 ; 35 R. R.

407 103,341)

Harden (1852), 2E. 4, B. 188 ; 22 I,. J. Q. B. 29i) ; 17 Jur.

804 a«»

Hardy (1871), L. R 1 C. 0. R. 278 ; 40 L. J. M. C. (12 ; 23

L. T. 783 ; 19 W. R. ;J59 ; 11 Cox C. C. 03« 4«!P

Harper (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 78 ; 60 L. J. AI. C. 90 : 44 L. T.

613 ; 29 W. R. 743 i 14 Cox C. C. 374 .. .. .. 472

Harrald (1872), L. R 7 Q. B. 3«1 ; 41 L. J. O. B. 173 ; 26

L. T. 616 ; 20 W. R. .■)28 IK

Harris (1836), 7 C. & P. 429 4117

(1836), 7 C. it P. 44« .-«

(1842), Oar. & M. «61 m

(1701), 4 T. R. 202 : :' R R. .•)58 707

Harrogate (ISiO), 15 Q. B. 1012 ; 20 L. J. M. O. 25 j 13 Jur.

422 J 4 New Sess. Oa. 319 S4(;

Harvey (1747), 1 Wils. 164 ta

Hastings (1822), 5 B. & Ald.'U92 n. ; 1 D. & R. 148 ; 24 R. 1{.

667 4:>;

Haughton (1853), 1 E. & B.601 ; 22 L. J.M. 0.89 ; 17 Jur.

455 ; 93 R. R. 264 m

Havcring-atte-Bower (1822), 5 B. A Aid. 691 ; 2 D. & R.

176; 24 R. R. 632 41';

Hawkesworth (1786), 1 T. R. 450; 2 East P. C. 255 .. 'M

■ Hazelton (1874), L. R 2 C. 0. 134 ; 44 L. J. M. C. 11 ; 31

L. T. 451 ; 23 W. R. 1.39 493

Hellier (ISTl), 17 Q. B. 229 ; 21 L. J. S,. C. 5 ; 16 Jur. Wl :11.'

Helton (1742), Burr. S. C. 187 ; 2 Stra. 1168 .. .. m

40

'''^^'"•« O' CASKS.
6?^;'^-"«MlQ.l,fl,»4.„,,

eix

IS!!
fl07

832

r,i

tMTt
I'M;

n«

— P ,be ,1792), 5 T P'ri; ^'^ •• '^

-— (W9^ q:b.§.is«4 . « ; • ''• '^^

• *** I-' J- M. c. loi .

2t>ji

2»l.j;q.b:-,

•• .(Mr

■■ 217
-17. C}''^

«21
515

"11

-Hutoe (1870), f ii^/"J- t«I ■• . ' ■*»"'-C„a. 7(B-.

"-.tfercrafirf s- n, * "^^ '« = « ^- j. m. t- ^■«

ex

TABIiG OF CASES.

R. V. Hyde (1862), 7 E. & B. 869 n. ; 21 L. J. M. C. »4 ; 18 Jur.

IW? 2"'

Idlo (1818), 2 B. * Aid. U« ., .. ••„„••, J,- !"-

~- Iiigull (1877), 2 Q. B. D. IW) ; 4(1 L. J. M. C. 113 ; 3o L.T.

5S2;25W. R.57 849, «i>». Will

Ingham (1884), 5 B. & S. 257 ; 1) Cox C. C. B(>8 ; ,33 I* ;'• .

y. B. 183 ; 10 Jur. N. 8. 968 ; 10 L. T. 458 ; 12 W, R. 7»3 M.t

Ingram (1697), 2 Salk. B93 •• I™

Inland lUirenue Comiiin. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. B89 ; 57 L. J.

M. C. 92 i 69 L. T. 378 i Wt W. R. 098 ; 52 J. P. :fflO . . if.W,
IiBtono. (1868), h. R. 3 Q. B. 218 ; :17 L. J. M. C. 37 ; 17

L. T. 497 ; 18 W. U. KW ; 9 B. * S. 108 Wl

Iimwioh Union (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 289 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 207 ;

;)8 L. T. 317 ; 25 W. R. 511 382, lIWi

Jamo. (1788), 1 Ea»t :tO:l 11 •■ 'iV>

Jay (1858), 8 E. & B. 489 ; 27 h. J. M. C. 25 ; 4 Jnr. N. S.

407 ; 112 R. R. 849 -'4i;

JeanB (1844), 1 C. & K. 539 4W

Joiikina (188:)), 3 B. & H. 118 ; 32 L. J. M. C. 1 ; 9 Jur.

N. S. 570 ; 7 L. T.272 ; 1 1 W. R. 20 IWI

Jenniug'a Case (1838), 2 Lowin C. C. l:« -"iX-'

Jcpsun (1787), 2 Bast P. C. 1115 l^w

Ji>hn»on (1839), 8 CI. & F. 41 ; 49 R. R. 14, II. L -L'-'

(1720), 1 Stra. 281 'i^l

lones (1841), 12 A. & E. ti84 ; 1(1 L. J. M. C. 0 ; 54 R. R.

881 **>*

(1851), 5 Cnx C. f 228 -I""

(1897),87L.J. Q. B. 41 471

.Iiirdan (1838), 7 C. & P. 432 4«;

Kane, [lUOl] 1 K. B. 472 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 143 ; 84 L. T.

240 ; 85 .1. r. 28 5«(l

Kensington (1847), 12 y. B. 854 ; 17 L. J. Q. B. 332 ; 2

Jur. 747 -'.■»

Kent (Inhabitant.) (1811), 13 East 220 ; 12 R. R. 330 . . KH

Kent .IJ. (187.1), L. R. 8 Q. B. 305 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 112 ;

12W. R. U35 i'-^

(1890), 24 Q. B. D. 181 ; 59 L. J. M. C. 51 ; 82 L. T.

114 ; 38 W. R. 253 ; 64 J. P. 453 ; 17 Cox C. C. 81 .. Sil

Kerrison (1813), 1 M. & S. 435 ; 14 R. E. 491 .. ■■ (S^S,

Kettle, [1905] 1 K. B. 212 »ll

Keyn (187G), 2 Ex. D. 83 ; 13 Cox C. C. 403 ; 46 L. J. M. ('.

17 .. .. 284,205,274,27:

King (1711), 1 Salk. 182 •"■"►I

(1718), 1 Seas. Ca». 27 *''-

Kingston-upon-Thames J J. (1858), E. B. & E. 250 ; 27 L. J-

M. C. 199 ; 4 Jur. N. S. 768 ; 113 R. R.831 :'■*!

Kipps (I8.-1O), 4 C.ix 0. C. 167 *»'

Knapp (18.W), 2 E. A B. 447 i 22 L. J. M. O. 139 ; 17 Jur.

530 ; 1 C. L. R. 443 ; 95 K. R. 8:i4 -*'

TABLE OP CASES.

342
352
220

17

- Iwcal Oovt. Bd 7?SL, '^^ "22 •• ■• 2lfl Rno

■ liondon C. 0., flsoD'i V 7^^ "« J- P. .'{40 ■*• "■ ^BS ;

ISO

340

l<k 340

cxil TABLE OP CABEB.

R. V. Loiid..u J J. & V. C, [1893], 2 Q. B. 476 j 80 L. T. 082 .^^ J«».,

London (Mayor of) (1847), Kl «• B. 1 : l" L. J. Q. R 18» : '

11 Inv HH? tr •* •• ** '* ''*'*

Long (liil). 1 .i."a 746'i 1 (J & D. W ; « Jur. I* : K ^^^

Loom (1827), 1 Mm. C. O. Ifld" .. •• - •• 6?-'

LopM (1888), 1 D. & B. 625 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 48 ; 4 Jur. N. 8. ^^

tovIiSi a*«M)'. i**!' *«•''•• ai» i « C* P-"* !««•«• "^

I«xd»le (175H), I'Uurr.W !! «2. ««. f';-;

L.lffe (18n7), H Ea.t !»» : 9 II. K. 4«1 .. .. .. I'-'l.

Lundie (1H«2), HI L. J. M. C. 1B7 ; 8 ,Iur. N. S. Ml) ; B I,. T. _

_'2^o!>?K f K. B. iU ; 72 L. J.K. B.'io" , m L. T. '"]

26; Bl W. a«I«l 07 J. I'. 41 .. ••„,•;. ,„J- -'"

^1-, [1898] 1 g. B. fll ; «7 h. .1. Q. B. Wl ; 77 L. T. fl«8 ;

46W.B. 2<»; 8A.p.M. <•. :««; 18('. f. 0. 677.. .. l<»

Z:K<i^.\:^:.^!B.«77; «7L..'.-M.C.m, i» ^

L. T. UB; 1«W. R. 085 :*l

McKenziB (1820), R. & R. 429 .. •»•

. McM»hon (1894), 16 N. 8. W. L. R. IM /"»'• „ ■■ •• «'

MaiUenlioiul (1882), 9 Q. U. D. 494 ■, 51 L. J. Q. B. 444 ; 4(.

J P 724 • •• •• •* •■ *■*

MainwKing (1868), E. B. & E. 474 ; 27 L. J. M. C. 278 ; 4

Jur. N. S. 928 ; 113 R. R. 7:» l'

Mallinwn (1758), 2 Burr. «79 .. ■• •;, „ ■ • ,;■ ""'

M.nchMter (1867), 7 E. & B. 4B:I ; 26 L. J. M. C. «6 ; 110

R R tt78 •■ ■• lU, J)(U

_(182lj,'4B.&AId!'504; ;W R. R.258n. .. .. W

(1854)! 3 E. & B. -.m i 2 C. U R. 974 ; 23 L. ,1. M. I'.

48 ; 18 Jur. 267 ; 97 R. R. Bll ••„,•.„;, .„,.;• ■*'
M«iiche»tor Corp., [1911] 1 K. B. 5«0 ; 80 L. J. K. B. 2(1.) ;

104 L. T.B4 ; 7B .1. P. 73 ; 9 L. (!. R. 129 .. .. .. ».l

Mwichoster Wntorworks (1823), 1 B. & C. IKtO ; 3 D. iV: H.

20 "'"

Mankelow (1853), Dears. C. C. 1B9 ; 6 Cox C. C. 143 ; 22

L. J. M.C. 115; 17 Jur. 352 «'

Mann (1727), 2 Stra. 754 •>'

Mansel Jone. (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 29 ; 60 L. T. 860 ; 37 W. R.

608; 53J. P. 7.30 ''^

Margram (1793), 5 T. K. 153 '■'

Marks (1802), 3 Eaat 157 ;* B. R. 377 J^'

Marriot (1692), 4 Mod. 144 J*

Marsh (1824), 2 B. & C. 717 •■„••„" ,„, ■• „ •,:. '*

Maahitor (18:17), 6 A. & H 153 ; 6 L. J. K. B. 121 ; 1 N. ,V

P. 314 ; W. W. & D. 173 ; 43 R. R. 43;t .. 114, 1-^2 »S

TABLE OF 0ABE8.
— MMtl.ew.(i797).i„ „ -, _ ■• .7 ''• "• '" '« i ' N,

~;r7(''**«^- «y bIu: .H.,",- ^f'*' i''L-.»M (••■,,, •■ ">

'^^BMST- '■■'''■■ '■• ■

IliecLell, a" „■'•/' ''»"'/''« .. •• •• .. 645

, ■• ■■ ^ '' " •'• J.148 ■ «■) r I ., •• 11"

'""ck (lans ,,-,, ,,■■ .. "" ■ «2 L. J. K. a

^T. 720^";'^' ' «• «• D. 5.14 , 4(i il J. M e J?'' *•». ■»*
r«.ri) (l&-,o) ., ,V . •■ .. ™- *-• •:51 : 3«

'''™%(i7iio),2wi^V;'"j'»^>5o :; :: -'w. 357

.. 230

c.xiii

nut

2IH

OJur *^
IW), 4WI
.'MA
72I>
4:fl
178

ai.t

15

TO
150
I.«
345

ni8

2(i7
672,
5V2

oxiv TAULB OV CAU:8.

n. K. Moivnli (I7!«), a Httn. lUfltl .. .. "«

Mui««n(TliuVor..iii«iCMu)(lOT«). «7J. I*. '.W .. ;. IK'

Miiixii (l«17), U U.lC.»'.llll! :IHI,..I.M. l'.84: ItlL.T.

tWl 1 15 W. 11. IKMI ; U» t'l.x ('. C. 4tl ■»'■■!

(IKHI), 1 II. A' All. 441 V "-'"

. MorriKin (IWill), 1U.1I I', f. laM ; H O.x V. V. l^» : !W U .1.

M. C. 210; Xi U. T. (). H. Wll ; 7 W. U. 5M .. .. 4!ni

— »[i.H.in, [18112] 1 g. II. :«i 1 111 L. J. g. ii. iw i iw L, t. «ii j

40 W. 11. lou , Ml .1. iM«l _ •• , .. '•>-'

M.«t (IHKU 7 g a I). 244 ; .W L. .1. M. V. 113 i 44 U T.

8a:l ; »1» W. R. 75H 1 4n .1. p. tllKl; 14 C.n o. c. Ma .. 4«l
Mount (ma). U K.I1 p. l". 2«»i 44 Ii. J. P.O. M ; IBUT.

2711; WW. 11.672 J"-'

MurruwClKIW, 1 Mo... C. C. 45(1 f*.'

— MnnUy (1787), 1 T. U. UM •-'•-'"

— Myi.tt (I8«:i), :i2 1,. .1. M. c. 1S8 ai7

Noatli(1871), L.K.«g. 11.707; 40 L..T.M.('. 111.1 .. ».'

NcvillB (1846), 8 g. 11. 45a ; 15 L. J. M. C. 311 ; 70 11. H.

7:{8 '"'"'

Newnuin (1888;, 8 g. B. V. 70fl: 51 I,. J. M. C. 87 ; 40

L. T. am i 30 w. K. ,vx) i 4n .1. P. tii2 47i

NicholKill (1810), 12 Jjwt 3:10 ; 11 H. U. 308 115, I III

Norf..lk (1832), 4 11. .4 Ail. Kia ; 2 L. .i. M. C. 23 .. 4211, 4:«

(18,14), 5 U. * All. ilWI 1 :«> U. H. 713 oil

Ni^th C.iIllllBhnm (1823), 1 B. & C. 578 ri<i4

North CuiTv (1825), 4 B. * O. 95:1 ; 7 V. Si U. 424 .. U,-,

Northlunch (1n;14), B B. & A. 1178 21i:i, 2!»i

Norwich (laiO), I B. & All. 310 lilt)

, Novi., [IBOo] « K. B. 45(1 ; 74 I.. .1. K. B. (Wa i IW L. T.

.-.,14 1 BOJ. P. 288 ; 21 Cox C. U. 33 34!

O'Connor (1882), 16 Cox C. C. 3 ; 45 L. T. 512 1 46 J. 1>.

214 „ m

"oldhkm (1862); 21 L. .1. M. C. llVt ; 2 Den. *io .. .. 7(1

(18G8), Mayor and Corw.mtion of, L. R. 3 'i, B. 474 ;

37 L. J. M. C. 169 ; 18 L. T. 240 ; 46 W. II. 789 ; 0 B. & S.

202 5:,1

Overwen (1847), 10 g. B. 700; 16 L. J. M. C. 110;

llJor.487 ''-•■'

Owen» (18B9\ 2 E. & E. 86 ; 28 L. J. Q. B. 310 .. .. 102

(1828), 1 Mm.. C. C. 205 Vil

Oxford (Bp. of) (1879), 4 g. B. D. 625 ; 48 L. J. g. B. IMP ;

41UT. 122 421). 4.1i

( liford (V. C.) (1872), I,. U. 7 g. B. 471 ; 26 L. T. 606 71, 117

()xfi.rd»hiro J,I. (1813), 1 M. & 8. 446 I»"

■ ()xley(1852), ng. 11. 26(i 710

Paddlo (1822), K. * U. 484 481)

- — Patrpt (1881), 8 g. B. D. 151 i 61 L. J. M. C. 9 ; 45 L. T.

7114°; 30 W. R. :138 I"l

I'imworth (1802), 2 Ea»t 413 li«

Parker (18:17), 7 C & P. 829 ; 2 Muo. C. C. 1 .. .. 4''«

TAULK or CASM.
"■ «. IVi(lsii>i, ciiuui J 11 , .

:2: ^'V'r?"). » w. Ml. 7..y •■ •• ., ''^AM.

oxv

Will

AfK)
(t'N

'B II. it. '4111

./ur.

.'Ml

Aid

III

1711

1 ". .V h.

■■^ L. J.
I'.W; III

— - P.n.ier (18.^.,, ai'L-. f ; *; ' • ««<

ronxmby (1H42( .1 1 1 iV . ; • ■

£'"*•<>» (1S81), 7 y 1, ,■; .,„... .. ., ''I^«-

'^'.- ^*in:y'c.V'i.7j ""v'™- '• '•■^^' :.'.•■ 'V'1?

- I'reito.. (iai9), 7 bLtl rlw "■• '^- **■ 'W' ■ • 4 w' S'-

-Prmce(1875), L.U V,,''V,V«..P.C. .. "'— " •«•',
J'. T. 700; 24Vr V^fi^-.V,?- Vf* ■■ <* I'- J- M c 'iaa .ii

424
IN

»7

nil

IkVI
217

.■14

l.«; M

ir;

„ : (i«27), 2 c & p7,,1-

IW, 181,

*tm
ant)

1011
■.tttt!

mi

172

4!W
120

fiftl

1(M

4»7
707
«0«

190
S8«
322

cxvi TABLE 01 CASES.

R. .;. Purdoy (1804), 5 B. & S. ilOd l 34 I- J- M. C. 4 ; IX Jur.
N. s. 153 i 11 L. T. :m ; la W. R. 76

R»tcliffo (1882), 10 y. B. D. 74 ; 02 L.J. M. C. 40 ; 47 L. T.

388; 15 Cox C. C. 127 .. .• ■• •• •■ •■
Reatl (1849), 13 y. B. 024 ; 4 New Sess. Caa. 7 i 18 L. J.

M. C. 104; 13 Jur. 78!» .. .. •• •• •• ••

(1878), 3 Q. B. D. 131 1 14 Cox C. C. 17 ; 47 L. J. M. C.

0(1; .37L. T. 722; 2BW.R.283 471

R™,,,,, (1853), Dc»r». & B. C. C. 22«, 2 C. L. R. 120; H

Cox C. C. 227 i 23 L. J. M. 0. 11 ; 17 Jur. 1014 ..

hovco (1767). 4 Burr. 2075

Richard, (18IH)). 8 T. R. KM; 5 R. R. 489

Rilcv, [18«n 1 Q. B. -.m ; Uo L. J. M. C. 74 ; ( 4 L. 1 . 2o4 ;

44 W. R. 318 ; HO J. I". 51» ; 18 C. C. C. 285
Roberts, [ISIOl] 2 K. B. 117 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 590 ; 84 L. T.

.ViO; 49W. R. 488; 66 J. P. :159

Robins (1844), 1 C. & K. 4M .•

Robinson (1759), 2 Burr. 800 .. .. .. .. -Wl,

(1859) 28 L. J. M. C. 38 ; Bell C. C. 34 ; a Jur. N. S.

203 ; 32 L. T. 502 ; 7 W. R. 203

(1852), 17 Q. B. 4G6

Robaon (1885), IB Q. B. D. 137 ; 55 L. J. M. C. 55 ; 53 L. T.

823 • .34 W. R. 276 ; 50 J. P. 488 ; 15 Cox C. C. 772
Rochester (1801), 7 E. & B. 910; 27 L. J. Q. B. 40; 110

R. R. 889 8*">,

Rose (1847), 2 Cox C. C. 329 .. ..

(1865), 5 E. & B. 49; 24 L. J. M. C. 130; 1 Jur. N. S.

803 ; 103 R. R. ;158 .• ••

. Rowlands (1882), 8 Q. B. D. !XV); 51 L. J. M. C. 51; 46

L T. 286 ; 30 W. R. 444 ; 4« J. P. 4.'!7 ; 15 Cox C. C 31 . .
Russell (1849), 13 Q. B. 237 ; 3 New Ses». Cas. 368 ; 18 L. J.

M. C. 106 ; 13 Jur. 259

(18:«), 1 Moo. C. C. 377

(1805), « East 427 ; 2 Smith 424 ; 8 R. R. 506

,[1901].\. C. 446; 70 L. J. K. B. 998; 85 L. T. 253;

20CoxC. C. 61

Saddlers' Co. (1863), 10 H. L. Cas. 404; .32 L. J. Q. B.

337 • 9 Jur. N. S. 1081 ; 11 W. R. 1004, H. L. 112, MW,

- — • Saffron Waldon (1846), 9 Q. B. 76 ; 9 New Scsa. Caa. 360 ;

15 L J. M. 0. 115; 10 Jur. 639; 72 R. R. 186 ..

Sainsbury (1791), 4 T. R. 456 ; Nolan 8; 2 R. R. 43;j loll,

, St. Albaiia (1853), 22 L. J. M. C. 142 ; 17 Jur. 631

. St. George's Hanover Square (1812), 3 Camp. 222 ; 13 R. R.

792 . .. .. *• .. •*
St. George's Union (1871), L. R. 7 Q. B. 90; 41 L. J. M. V.

30; 26L. T. 696; 20W. R. 179

St. Giles (R. V. Chadwick) (1847), 11 Q. B. 173 ; 70 R. R.

313

St. Gregory (1835), 2 A. & K. 9!) ; 4 L. J. M. C. 9; 4 N. A

M. 137

3411

314

31m

. 191

491
lilK
70R

17li

.'i2li

4li7

•2Ki
4»7

7-a

258
357

613

7i»>

m;

71

IIKI

;i7fi

TABLE OF OASEa
St. Sepulchre (laiiriRVrj*-'^''- 9)8 ..

,«^ (i8si),8g.B.D.e69; ml.j;mc.

— Saitren (1784), c;id. 444-

-?S)fb^-»^"-^"^''^^-

cxvii

29 «'. K,

• (.'. V.

L- J. y. B.

— Senior daru-v i V „ ;• •• .
M- C. 125 , lo'j ,rW^«l ■■ ,« Cox V. c/iHs. i, r V

■^,""™ a8iinVR'M«^'"'- * '•■ * «• «3^v « J..;: 4... ■■

": •'? K. n. 40!) .. ^7' ■* B. A- .Ad. 218; 1 r,. ,, y ^,-

348

lai

15.5

.•S!)2
1.5.i
378

442
15
15

21K

.•WB

:m

807

877
.'>40
.•)05

«r9

825

5.i4
6;J2

818

284
672

829

296
28(i
487

881

247
247
424

i;t

6»5

- 4

cxviii TABLE OF CASES.

R. V. Slmr„>er (188«), 17 Q. B. D. ;)23 ; 55 L. J. M. 0. 15:i ; So
L. T. 12(1, 34 W. R. B3<1; ^\^lI% j„;: j,. S 3.i0; 4

Silve»ter(18«4), :tt L..I. M. t.7J, !"■'«>■■ .^4

li. &8.a27;9L.T.«82, 12W.U.37B .. ^,,^

Hiinp.011 (1842), Car. '^ *■; "'I r , ' m (■ ui . . fi, ;)57 SiTi

Skin (1859), Bell V; ^'^i 87 L J M. C 120; 50 L. T.

Slwle (18S«^, 21 Q. B. D ♦j^'l^;. V' ox C C. 4U« 127, 471

fl4(), 37 W. 11. l"i'»i''-„^:'"J 'i I o B 24B, ;«w.u.
Slaior (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 2b, ; 61 L. J . U • B. -4« . ^T, mw

410 ; 4« J. P. fi94 .. .. ■■ ^- ,, J.JJ, s Cox C. C.

=!!::!!Wi^^i^^ u.*^^ ->- --■ - ^u It;, 4.
_Y:i^(?^j>n:;i.M;c.2i«;Hw:u.5«ii .. .. ;^

=:ziaSl^;^Q:a.?^;D.*-M.5.H,i3i:.j.Q:-B.i««, ,^,^

* ■'"■' a^isV L R.' 1 C. C. B. iio ; i7,L. J; M. C. « ; 17

= irci;r(?i»' "^ - ^ > ^?q. b. 841 ; n ^^^

_^Snp^n !.-«« T;-,«rirf 'cl '"' "' """"'" "

ri!)171 1 K. B. 259 ; 86 L. .1. Iv. 11. t>l^. C. A. ..
'^^outh KilvinKton (1844), 5 (J. B. 21b ; 3 G. .V. D. lo7 , l.S ^^^

__^ii!'«&ii»'£l^&-. [m.]2 K. b: l; ^ i-.^^ „„

272; 14 Jnr. 828 .. . _ ,•_. ^ ^ •^„, .;.-, , , 'jj g igg . jo
I Weald

; 28 L.

(Wl

Jur. N. S. 1099 ; 10

L. t!4H8; 12 W. U. 873

- Sparrow (1740), 2 Stra. 1123
Spratley (18511), (1 K. & B. 3113

(102, H3

:'25L.J. (i- B. 2,57;2.1ur.

N. S. 735

10(1 K. n. (1:12

- Spurrell (18(1(1),

L. 11. 1 Q. B.72; 35 1.

■ Spurreii (inoo;, u- ■>•. * ,S'. , . w tj si
Jur. N. S. i08 ; 13 L. T. .%4 ; 14 W . B. 81

J. M. C. 74; 12

- Staff..ra,hirc J.I. (1802), 3 East lol

(1850,2 El. & B1.089; 23

L. J. M. C. 17 ; 18 Jur.

1073

TABLE OF CASES.

CXIX

R. "i^'»f«'»'';™ JJ.C180«).7E„.t64»; 3S„,Ul.o5o, 8K.1, —
(1810), 12 Eii".t 672" ■' •■ •• •• l"..')7b,374

021

■ ■_ 4B4

(1810)i 12 Eii".t 672 •■ •• ••!»,. '17

-^Step,^(I874,. L. R. 9 Q. B. /ssT*?!!^!-*!. C. iV.. !^^' '«
-Stepney Corporation. [19^2] 1 k. B. 317 , ?! L. J! K. B ^^
-Stovon8(18;M), iMoo.UC.400 ' •■ " ••' 709

~sSW'»^-*E.4br ;; •• •• •• ..

"s^t?9lv rii -Vj Vl~l" ^.,^>' «■•• !«'.■ i" L. f.

- stoke BliM (1^) 'go „ ,:!'* i 1" •-« <J- 0. ,587

- Stoke Damerel (1836), 7 B. & c'. BK) i'l M. & K 458 -^
-Sto„e(1864).2.,L. J. M. C.14; Dear,. C. c.2r.l; i7J„f' ^

-r— (i?''«).lEait639"

- Morr (1705), 3 Burr. IC98 "

- htrachan (1872), L. H 7 o R iiiQ . -V T ,■
L. T. 835; 20 w: R. 6^9 ^' '^ ' " ''■ ''■ «• "• -'10; 20

- Mrntford-on-Avon (1809), 11 KMt Im'

»«;^b4\i^'i""«-.--.m.i:
|S(U')TB^M,^^v™ V'*'- ^-^^ K

N. S. .-ioi; 11 L -"740 iT^V H ;-;'■ **• '-'■ «"■ 11 J"r
r-(179r),7T. U.W7;4R R-'fi •■ • ••

S«n(1840),4CoxC.C.108 '*'

»'^1i\^"-«-«^^«l'-^:M.a39;53,f

.. 137

ISO
734

210

705
10,

400
081

708

417
llfl

478
Wis
581
102
B21
19, .•i45

10
:i44
729

oxx

TABLE OF 0A8E8,

""■ "m^t&fl^' "^^ »■ "• '" ■■ "« ^- ■>■ M- ^'^r^ u T.

Taylr,r(1916),84L.J. k. B. 1871 "

r— (1830), 4 C. & p. 237 v.

Thornhil! (1838), 8 C. * P. 674

lhuraton(lB62), 1 Lov. 91

Tillingliani (1830), 1 n. & Ad. iso

Tin.mins (18«0), 30 L. J. M. 0. 46 • Bell r '(' 97«'.' an'

C\i: 401; 6Jur.N.S.1309, 3 UT 337 9 W R 'J^ "
Tmklor(186!l;, 1F.&F.513 /'•'•«'•» *^- «• 3b

^177 8^u"r17T°" ^^^^- " '^^ ^- *''*■■ 'i» I-J- y- B

Tolley (1803), 3 Ewt 407 • "• i- 74

~i^rs;j:'i"j^??'5i' ,^?rR; r^^ «-»• *-'"'• «^^ "

TownroH-(1830), IB. &Ad.465

Treevo (1786), 2 &st I'. C. 821 ; IS r' R ■«;

Tniinia.,, [1H13] W. N. 198 ^^ ■'""■«• •«'

^''S'''" 'lii'^J' 2 Ix-rd Raym. loeo "

Tutvey (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 520

Twyford (1830), 5 A. & K. 430 • fi N & M ii^i- " '

— IVkr, [1891]2 Q B. 688; 61 L. S. M.'c*'38 -^ -

Un>v. of Cambridge (1723), 1 Stm. 667

I'PP" ?*?""'"'' (1802), 2 East 413

I hwarth (1830) 6 A. ft E. 261 ; 6 L. J. M C 139

Vandeleer (1718), 1 Stra. (i9 ' ^•""

Varlo (1775), 1 Cowii. 250

= &^^^i;^;=,^i/.K.au7,c.uR. :•

WagstaS (1819), R. & R. 39„ ,_ ** ••

~L T.r.i/'?^' '"..'*• '" «■ »• *■» i ^'L- J-'»I. C. 107; .T

60L. T

178,

499
134

152

492

41! i
497

Ii8;i

740
21i{

487
), 181

.■528

4I>I
12

!, 181
.j(i7
Mi

«.■»

49;i
m

211
25fl

.'174
457
(124

l:«

KB)
, 1(«

71
(IL'2
.W2

44
(Hi.)

:i%

m

71)7

''ABLE OF CASEa

oxxi

— 'y-'wii ffi) V/;'"; c. a Mr' r r'-p

fi82

cW;iQ.B:^'.<'j^23.-23R.i,_

lv*A«i:

358

,:™i. oig K «. ■"'«■■■'■ 1. c ■», i, »•

-^■^id''^"co;i1*" •■ ;:

420

34»

487

73S

4»g

4(U

621

521

im

728
2»n
£3;)

C8a

74, 448
•■ 488
■• 488
• «29

CXXIl

TABLE OP OASES.

FAnr.
184

4D

4!K)

155
554
(U5

awp

■237
4(i7

4HI
IIIH
■2]tt

1K4
4IW

R. f . Willmett (184S), 3 Cm C. C. 281 „ ..

Wilwm (1878), ;t y. B. D. 42 ; 37 L. T. 3B4 j 2D W. R. 44 ;

13 Cox C. C. (130

(1867), D. & II. 127 i 28 L. J. M. C. 18; 7 Cox C. C.

UK); 2Jur. N. S. 114« 473,

Wimblodon Local Board (18821, 8 Q. B. D. 450; 51 L. J.

Q. B.21!); 48L. T.47; 30W. R. 4U0 .. 153,

Windsor, Mayor (1844), 7 Q. B. 908 ; 13 L. J. Q. B. 337 . .

Winwick (18««), 8 T. R. 454

Withyliam (1864), 2 C. L. R. 1867

Wood (1855), 6 E. & B. 4i)

(1830), 4 C. & P. 381

(186!)), L. R. 4 y. B. 559 ; 38 h. J. M. C. 144 ; 20 L. T.

684; 17 W. R. 850; lOB. * «. 534

Wo<xlhousc, [1006] 2 K. B. 501

Woodland (1786), 1 T. R. 261 ; 3 Ka»t 11 n

Woodrow (1846), 15 M. .4 W. 404 ; 2 New Sesj. Ca«. 34(i ;

IB L. ,1. M. C. 122

Woolcock (1833), 5 C. A- 1'. 516

Worce»terehiro .J J. (1839), 3 1". & D. 405 ; 12 A. & E. 283 ;

I Am. & H. 80; 3 Jur. 1050

(1854), 3 E. & B, 477 ; 23 L. J. M. C. 113 ..

(1810), 6 M. * S. 457 ; 17 R. R. 397

Work»op Board (1865), 5 B. & S. 951 ; 34 L. J. M. C. 220;

II Jur. N. S. 1015 ; 10 li. T. 297 ; 12 W. R. 710 . .

Wright (1834), 1 A. & E. 434 74, 245,

. — - (1768), 1 BuiT. 543 70!),

Wycombo Ry. Co. (1867), L. H. 2Q. B. 310; SSL. J.Q. B.

121 ; 15 L. T. 601 ; 15 W. R. 489 ; 8 B. & 8. 25!) ..

Wymondham (1843), 2 (i. B. 541

Wynn (1719), Bunb. 30

York (1837), 6 A. & E. 419 ; 25 R. R. 423 n

York and N. Midland Ry. Co. (1853), 22 L. J. Q. B. 41 ..

Yorkshire (1834), 5 B. A- Ad. 1003; 3 L. J. M. C. 64; 1

A. &E. 863 '

(1815), 3 M. & S. 403

Youle (1861), 6 H. & N. 753 ; 30 L. J. M. C. 234 ; 4 h. T.

299 ; 9 W. R. 637 ^».

Younger(1793), 6T. R. 449: 2R. R. 638

Znlneta (184:S), 1 C. & K. 215 44,

R. (GaUagher) v. Tyrone .TJ., [1!)()1] ?. Ir. R. 407, Ir

Uouss II. Boa (1871), L. R. 5 H. L. 17B; 40 L. .1. Ch. 005; 24

L.T. 641 l"'l

Rouss Kostritz, Jie (1880), 49 L. .1. P. & M. 07 -'>^

Roya, £a:;>. (1877), OCh.D. 332; 46 L. J. Bank. 122 ; 37 L. T.

17; 26 W. R. 193 '-'-3

Reynolds v. Att.-fion., Nova Scotia, [189C] A. C. 240 ; 05 L. J.

P.C. 16; 74L. T. 108 '■»-

Khodesv. Rhodfs(1882), 7 A. C. 102,P.C «

242

2«7

712

528
12(1
2."iO
110

217

om

■xu
4r<i

202
118

TABLE OP 0A8ES.

RhymneyRv T.! „ »t' '"-AH-aSTj 2.rur saa. I'r' -•'•

cxxiii

„. "■ ^.n/?; 4« J. 1>. 247.

Richmond Gm Co « If; i • , ■■ •■ •'? U J.

'•• Whnrton (1854) B H V r. ■• •• •• •""•*»*

p. N- S. 173 .r'^>- " H. L. Ca,. 238 , 27 L. J. Ch. 4«: 4 j,"

::t^'^-^K-^^1?i.4;;.i,,:,, ^

^V.i^a«r9,.-K..B;i00;-48W..,.i,,^^f«7

3<iU
70!)

2m

379
14

.•)03

530
022
127

373

724

2MU
112

17fi

3im

512
37«

l:, i —, -• •• .. •"• ' " •'•J.LH. 028; 2(

^t'B:»^-),|B;.c.^,3n..£7S8r2.^

C22
VU3

. |:il'

f$lf,

TABLE OF 0ABE8.

1 N. & M. 443i :«

cxxiv

Riven «. Ad»iii» (1*78), 3 E». U. iwi i •<• "•

;»i 27 W. B.381 .. .. •• •• 284,

_"„: Sge^n (.874):L,K. » «. B. 4»4r 43 t! J. M. C. 1»,
_^;.^oJJ?K^VrC.7«0.;«L.J.Ex.6..9UT.

Rubert«>n, & P. (187B). L- B. 20 B,. 7JJ , 44 u

32 L. T. 097 ; 2» W. R. 900 . . .•• •• j (, p ^g

R,jbin«.n r. Brigg» (1871), L- «■ « tx- * ■ ™

L.T.132;52W E.8;67J.P-^f •■ " 298, 3:«,

=:::^=«V4^:i», bol.,,:q.b.u7; «2

^'i: ^WS.gr(l£ri3 Q. B. 753 :• 18 II- a. Q. B. 250 ;
BoJifn?-;; I?il). 19"ch. D:156 r51 L/i. Ch.b7 , 45 UT^
_rT=hfKl^i8'^l 21 Q:b d:13 = 57 K j! Q. B. 540 ; 5»
L T. 557 ■, 36 W. B. 910 ; 6 A.p. «• C- 3J» j- ,^ (j^), 51
Rochdale Buil-Ung Society v. M»yor &c., Bochd«ie u

r "r ■csr[m]'''Q^ ^9:^ ; «« l. .. q. b. 782 ■,

64L. T. 641 .. •• " , , "oi- i't Oh 438- 3

Roddam r. Morley (1857), 1 Do «.& J. 1 : 26 L. J. Ch- 438 .

Jur. N. S. 449; 118 R. R. 1 • •• •• -g. y j^

Mdy .. Fitzgerald (l«f >• «"v^-^"5Ch 012^ « u'j Ch.
Roderick v.A.tonI*cal Board (1877), 5 Ch.D. 328, 40

802;36L.T.328;2oW. R.403 ■• •■ „ ^ o

BodriguU r. MelhuiBh (1854), 10 Ex. 110; 24 L. J. Ex. -»,

W. R. 518 ; 102 R. R. 503 .. •• • " ^ j„

Roger,,ii.,[1894]lQ.B.425;63L.J.Q-B.1.8.70L.l.i <,

1 Manson 387

617
:I0K
577

376

414

Dir.

lH;i

(>H:t
7ir.

I'l

198

IW
4(i(>

471

i»:

, 211;

11:!

a40

2SC
2t)3

;i45

503
99

C31
11

TABLE OK CASKS.

exxv

'ft

„ 2«i 41 L. J. Kxa'S,/- •**«! 1" W. K. 8«» „„u L. K 7 K,
Ropery. Kn,,tt,ri««811 (J B^iio .•■„,,•; , ••

L. T. 636; 24 VV R. fJ *■"■ "' ^"' *5 I-. J. Ex. 777: ;«

724
.'14
118
114
228

348

724
2r)7
41)7

693

714

267,

P14
367

a
274

.1811
71H

27

'l<:'-.r^'- ('««). ^'"•*N.Vk,8, 27 I...i;Kx.;i;7; n7 ''^'
1-8. ■■ ■■ •• •• .. 173,724

9

• !■

1 ■'< ■

oxxvi TABUS or UABB).

Ruckiii.boy« •• I^lIoohW (1»*5' * "<"• I"' C. C. 4i 5 Mo,,.

Tj T. 4 i 23 W. R. 817 ...",,.•„ ^«i'

;. Cmbefort (1889). 23Q. D. D. 62.ii 08 L. J. y. B. 496;

-'l "«:„• Jf*J>Ul a7S)!?T. a 6«7;-i R. li. 685 ;: W

1. Prat (lB81l),ll«"n- 193 .. .. ::~^."~.j V

UuMcU Inititiition v. St. Oiloi &c., l)loom.biiry (1864), 23 L. J.

u«.li«o?. k:-(1877]; 1 w WfL'^"*- ''• ''■ *"" *' '^ '■

Q. B. 2:« i :W L. T. 190 J .fl W. K. AB •• •• ■ ■
Kuthir ». H«;ri. (187B), 1 Ex. D. 97; 45 L. J. M. C. 103, 34

1 m aog ^, ,, ,. .• •• ■• ••

Kotlaiid i. Rutland (150SX Cro. ElU. 377 .

Rvall t,. RoUe (1749), 1 Atk. 166

19L.T. 220

4011

«1J

«TH
■.■4:i

21.7
44»

.'lOK

LMiP

4IIU

4411

ill

113

KM

S.

Saaio... White„n.a„,[1910J^l K. B.^^; H^^i'l^^- ^'

sJX^^^mni:^:^^^ ^'^ ^1

540

66«,

Ik' 49 W ft: B4 64 J. P. 740
St cC; 'Howard de Walden (1795), 6 T. R. 338 .. ..

it one" Camrrwell v. Hunt (1887), 56 L. J. M. C. 66 ; 52 J. P.

St. do^'n Co. ;: Hoyennann^. Agencv [WQ. B."96 ; 62

T I O B 486 ■ 69 L. T. 329 ; 41 W. R. 56.)
St. John! HamWe"^! v. Cotto" (18«l)^2 App. Caj. «; 66 L. J.

0 B. 225 : 66 L. T. 1 ; 36 W. R. 60B i 51 J. P. 340
8t.JuanNepomuceno(l«24),lHagg. Adin.m .. .. .;

it Leonard^.. Franklin (1878), 3 C P. D. 377 ; 47 L. J. C. P

7a7- S9L.T. 129: 16 W. R. 882 ""'

Sf T^dkv r Oreen (1861), 9 C. B. N. S. 370; 2 F. & F. ItXl; :»<

ul. C. P 191 • TJnr. N. S. 394 , 3 L. T. 297 , 9 W. R. 1 111

St Marv ». Radcliffe (1717), 1 Stra, 60 ■

I'.PancrairBattenbury (1857). 2 C. B. N. S. 477; 26 h ..

C P 243 1 3 Jur. N. S. 1106 ; 109 R. R. 7K.5 .. . , L'40

St Sepulchre, ia; p. (1863), :« L.J. Oh. 372 ■•„••_ •

It. Ka.'. Ho.^\ .. Hudgell (1900) 70 L. .7. K B llo

"• t j"f >?73ri2'L; ?" 53r28 wTk' .*■"■ V- *\

108

4, .'>

l>lil>

TABLB or OABBH,

oxxvii

07

SJ4
225

«17
.■175

us

, a R. i,i« '^."'" "«-'>. 7 "• A c. iw ; B D. ;t R :;«, ,;;

42 L. i;; .?:,^" '^■'"'-'r" (i**)). 5 p. b*|„, ■,-, j^ ■■ .,.

■«"»».IIli,|„„(i86f„--„ •• .. •■ "'^■■'■1.20;

'»• Rawlins, [1892J A. C. 342 "^JQB.am

m

323

224

108

£84
642

A18

270

260

121

l;i4

282

277

402

U

ri

cxxviU

UBLK or (AltltS.

Hciilcii r. PlokoriiiR (ItHH), 4 IlinK. 44t* ; 1 U. * P. IW ..
bcultouk >'. Huiton (18TS), 1 C. V. V. lOe ; M L. J. C. r. 13S i

ML. T. 1110; MW. a 481

i)««l>orough (Mavor of) >'. Runl Authority of Bowborough

(1876), 1 Ex.D. 844i 84L.T. 768

Hwtchwd V. JahnMn (1H88), ST L. 1. U. C. 41 ; S3 J. P. 88» ..

IB
Hohmita, Kt p. (1884), 13 Q. B. D. IS09; 68 L. J. Ch. 1168;

SO L. T. 747 ; 83 W. II. HI3 ; 1 M. B. R. fiS

bohoHoM, Kr »., r 1891 1 3 Q. B. 438 ; 80 L. J. M. C. 1S7 ; M L. T.

780; :I0 W. It. fi80; M J. P. 4 ; 17 Coi C. C. 808 ..
Hchwomrhot v. Wllklni, |18BHJ 1 Q. J). MO; 67 L. J. Q. B. 47S ;

78 L. T. 339 ; 63 J. P. 347

ilcott V. Avury (18S6), S II. L. C. 848; 35 L. J. Ex. 808; 3

Jur, N. H. 816

V. Cnig's Ui'DrmenUtivin (1896), 34 11. 463, Hoo

V. Olmgow, [18991 A. C. 470 ; 68 U J. P. C. 98 ; 81 L. T.

803 ; 64 .r. P. 182

V. Morloy (1H87), 30 U. II. D. 130; 67 L. J. Q. B. 43; 67

L. T. 919; 86W. It, 67: 63.1. P. 380; 4 M. II. a 386
- — • i>. Paauet (1867), L. B. 1 P. C. 663 j 86 L. J. P. C. 65 ;

4 Moo. P. 0. C. N. S. 606

V. Boyal Wax Candle Co. (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 404 ; 46

L. ,1. Q. B. 686 ; 84 L. T. 688 ; 34 W. n. 668
». Uxbriilge By. Co. (1866), L. H. 1 C. P. 696 ; 86 L. J. C I'.

398; 13.1ur. K. 8. 603

Ocotlinh WidoWK' Fund r. Craig (1883), 90 Cta. D. 306 ; 61

L. J. Cll. H68 ; 80 W. II. 468

Bcrinuhiro v. HcrimHiiirc (1763), 3 Hagg. Coni. 896

Bcult V. Freeman (1877), 3 Q. B. 1). 177; 46 L. J. Q. B. 178;

86 L. T. 989 ; 26 W. a 231

Searaanr. Iloslev, 11896] 3g. II. 844, C. A

Secretary of Htato (or India v. McobLi, IIOOSI A. C. 299 ; 72 L. J.

K. B. 617 ; 89 L. T. 1 ; 61 W. B. 675, P. C. .. 000,

Bcfton, Jle, [1898] 2 Cli. 878; 67 L. J.Cli.618; ,. L. T.766; 47

W. R. 49

Helkrig t>. Davl» (1814), 2 Roue 811 ; 2 Dow. 250

Hcllar 1'. Bright 4 Co., Ltd., ] 1904] 3 K. II. 448 ; 78 L. J. K. B.

648 : 91 L. T. 9 ; 63 W. a 668 ; 30 T. L. R. 686 ..
8cUne» v. Judge (1871), L. H. 6 g. B. 724 ; 40 L. ,T. Q. B. 387 ;

34L. T. 906; 19W. aiUO ..

Senior v. Metrop. By. Co. (1868), 2 H. A C. 258 ; 82 L. J. Ex

225; 9 .Tur. N. .S. 802; 8 L. T. 544; 11 W. It. 886 ..
Bcward r. The Vera Cruz (1884), 10 App. Caa. 69 ; 54 L. J. P. 9;

62 L. T. 474 i 8a W. B. 477 ; 49 J. P. 824 ; 6 A«p. M. C.

8S8 8,68,814,

BcwcU V. Taylor (1869), 7 C. U. N. 8. 160; 6 Jnr. N. 8. 582 ; 29

L. J. M. C. 60; IL. T. 87

Bhackell l>. Rosier (18a6), 2 BinR. N. C. 684; 11 Scott 59; 2

UoiIgcB 17 ; 42 R. U. 666; 6 I, J. C. V. 198

63H

684

f.64
126.
,490

477

184

410

28.-,

m

476
Mi
t>~4
44(t

709

260

811,
166

JiOS

144
9«9

.079

414

172

3i7
702

WBLB or CABPA

l»fUy, A. (ism, •■!.-•„ •_. ..•*«;Wia>

• C.BlJj

3i".»- «• ('"«). . Apple. «¥»; .a , i;

rAUR

ass

M

on
73a

-».ThoiM,(18gor.„, •• ■"-'•"».■ law. II.

at

314

il^w r. B.„,on TlsSi) ,,"i?'„""- P- "0: S^ J ^.''■,!IJ,' «

-£• £",7 .on'. ^Jbj'a'ii.Var^ '^/-^ | f .«

t'PW .. H.I1 (1812,, iiJ,- " J^-on 388 .. •.«* ■ "

WS, oei
63
48

439

lai
616

619
61S

606

S81
610

=SS-«S""^

717
195
711.
713
S30
176
688

cxxx

TABLE OF CASES.

Sherbom v. Wells (1868), 8 B. & S. 784 ; 82 L. J. M. G. 170 ; 8

L. T. 274 am

Sherras v. De Buteen, [1898] 1 Q. H. 918 ; 64 L. J. M C. 218 ;

72 L. T. 889 ; 48 \V. E. 626 ; 59 J. P. 440 .. 187, 179, 186, 187,

190, 19.-,
Sherwood v. Ray (1887), 1 Moo. P. C. 858 ; 48 B. B. 9'J, P. C. .. 101

Shields 11. Rait (1849), 18 L. J. C. P. 120 5B0

Shiels V. G. N. By. Co (1861), 30 I;. J. Q. B. 381 ; 7 Jur. N. S.

681; 4L. T. 479 119

Shillito V. Thompson (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 12 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 18 ;

88 L. T. 506 ; 24 W. B. 67 526,396

Shine, Ex p., [1892] 1 Q. li. 522 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 263 ; 66 L. T.

146 ; 40 W. E. 886 ; 9 M. n. B. 40 .W6

Shipman ti. Henbest (1790), 4 T. E. 109 .. .. 238,240,734

Shipperdson's Trusts, i?ii (1880), 49 li. ,T. Ch. 610 .. .. 522

Shoolbred v. Boberts, [1899] 2 Q. D. 660 ; [1900j 2 Q. D. 497 ; 68

L. J. g. B. 998, C. A 199, 8-|0

V. St. Pancras JJ. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 846 ; 69 L. J. M. C.

63 ; 62 L. T. 287 ; 38 W. R. 399 ; 54 J. P. 231 .. .. 4N|J

Shore c. Cunningham, [1917] 2 Ir. B. 860 7H

Short 1'. Hammersmith Corporation (1911), 104 L. T. 70 ,. Tin

V. McCarthy (1820), 8 ]!. & Aid. 026 ; 22 B. B. 608 .. 12

Shortrode v. Check (1834), 1 A. & E. 67 ; 8 N. & M. 866 ; 40

U. B. 258 41,r,12

Showers v. Chelmsford Union, [1891] 1 Q. B. 839 ; 00 L. J. M. C.

65 ; 64 L. T. 756 ; .39 W. B. 2i)l 247

Shrewsbury v. Bcazloy (1865), 19 C. I!. N. S. 651 ; 84 L. J. C. 1',

828 ; 14 \V. K. 31 ; 13 L. T. 2H1 02

V. Scott (1860), 6 C. B. N. S. 1, 221 ; 29 h. J. C. P. 34. 190 ;

6 ,Tur. N. S 452, 472 74,296,348

Shrimpton v. Sidmouth By. Co. (1867), L. R. 3 C. P. 80; 17

L. T. 647 440

Shuttleworth, He (1846), 9 Q. B. 661 ; 2 New Sess. Cas. 470 ;

16L. J. M. C. 18; llJur. 41 653

1). Le Fleming (1865), 19 C. B. N. S. 687 ; 84 L. J. C. 1'.

809 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 840 ; 14 W. R. 18 55, 460, .170

Sill r. Worswick (1791), 1 H. Bl. 666 ; 2 E. B. 816 .. 269

Sillence, Ax p. (1877), 7Ch. D. 289 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 87 ; 87 L. T.

676; 26 W. R. 129 608

Simmonds 1'. Elliott, [1917] 2 K. B. 894 67;

V. Fulham Vestry, [1900] 2 Q. B. 188 ; 69 L. J. Q,

660 ; 82 L. T. 497 ; 48 W. R. 674 ; 64 J. P. 648
.). Mailing, [1897] 2 Q. B. 433; 66 L. J. Q. B. 685;

L. T. 341 ; 46 W. B. 608 ; 61J. P. 502 523

V. Woodward, [1892] App. Cas. 100; 61 L. J. Ch. 252 ; 06

L. T. 534 ; 40 W. R. 641, H. L 118

Simras v. Registrar of Probates, [1900] A. C. 323 ; 69 I...I. P. ('.

51 ; 82 L. T. 433, P. C 206,218

1).

77

Simpkin, A',. ;,. (1859), 2 E. & E. 892 ; 29 L. .1. M. C. 23 ;
N. S. 144

6 Jur.
611,1

TABLE OP OASBlfe

ixxxi

PAOll
17

268

34
728

:M=.o°i"^3U(/««= « ^' «6i : 6^-i f ^1 ™ ^- J- K. I

«''^"«i^^:«^^a-"^v..L:>.cH;2.8.f^

06,144

, nor,

410
281

833

803

10
323

344

527

574

593

527
528

22.'!

174

128

,636
267

212
250

107
412

oxjtxii

TABLE OF CASKS.

Smith V. Baker, [1891] App. Cas. 849 j 60 L. J. Q. B. 691 ; 65 L. T.

467: na J. P. 660, ILL 109

ti. Barnham (1876), 1 Ex. D. 419 ; 84 L. T. 774 . . S88

V. Birmingham Ooanlians (1857), 7 E. & B. 488 ; 26 L. J.

M. C. 106; 8,Tur. N. S. 769; HOB. R. 689 246

— V. Brown (1871), h. B. 6 Q. B. 729 ; 40 L. J. Q. B. 214 ; 24

L. T. 808 ; 19 W. E. 1166 63, 6r,0

V. Callander, [1901] A. C. 297 ; 70 L. J. V. C. 58 ; 84 L. T.

801 !iH2

». Cooke (1916), 79 J. P. 246 194

V. Dauney, [1904] 2 K. B. 186 ; 78 L. J. K. B. 646 ; 90 L. T.

760; 20T. L. R. 444 110

V. Fox (1848), 6 Hare 886 ; 17 L. J. Ch. 170 ; 12 Jnr. 130 ;

77 R R. 162 .. .. .. .. 12

V. d. W. By. Co. (1877), "8 App. Cas. i'os ; 47 L. J." Ch. 97 ;

87 L. T. 645 ; 26 W. E. 180 3r,7

i>. Huggett (1861), 11 C. B. N. S. 66 : K. 4 G. 484 ; 81 L. .7.

C. P. 88 ; 8 Jur. N. S. 617 ; 6 L. T. !I57 i 10 W. R. 80 . . nr.ll

i>. Jones (1880), 1 B. & Ad. 828 U60

i>. Keats (1882), 4 Hagg. Ece. 275 2W

• u. Kirby (1875), 1 (J. B. D. 181 ; 24 W. R. 207 .. 510

11. Kynnersley, [1908] 1 K. B. 788; 72 L. .T. K. Ti. ar>^ ; 88

L. T. 449 ; 51 W. B. .'i48 ; 67 J. P. 125 ; 1 L. (. U. 393 71, r,Or,
V. Lambeth Assessment Committee (1883), 9 Q. B. I). .'iH5 ;

62L. J. .M. C. 1 VB

D. Lancaster (1869), L. It. 5 C. 1'. 246 109

V. Lindo (1858), 4 C. B. N. S. 395 ; 5 Id. 687 ; 27 L. .1. C. V.

196, 885; 4 .Tur. N. S. 974 ; 114 R. B. 785 .. 04, 478, 532, 097

», Lister (1895), 64 L. . I. (j. B. 1.54 I.'.B

V. Mawhood (1K45), 14 JI. & \V. 452 ; 15 L. .1. Ex. 149 .. 099

t>. Moody (1908), 72 L. J. K. B. 48 H3

V. Northleach Rural District Council, [1902] 1 Ch. 197 ; 71

L. J. Ch. 8 iLW

V. Portsmouth .T,T., [1906] 2 K. B. 229 ; 76 L. .T. K. B. 851 ;

95 L. T. 6 ; 64 W. B. 698 ; 70 .1. P. 497 76

V. B. (1878), 3 App. Cas. 014 ; 47 L. .1. P. C. 61 ; 38 L. T.

233 010

I.. Rosario Nitrate Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 174 ; 70 L. T. 68 ; 7

Asp. M.C. 417 42

V. Southampton Corp.. [1902] 2 K. B. 260 0,W

V. Sparrow (1827), 4 Bing. 84 ; 2 C. & P. 544 ; 29 R. U. 514 091

u. Tilley (1664), 1 Keb. 712 5iU

V. Walton (1877), 8 C. P. D. 109 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 45 ; 37 L. T.

487 .101

V. White (1866), L. B. 1 Eq. 626 ; 85 L. .1. Ch. 454 ; 14 L. T.

860; 14 W. B. 610 69:1

V. Whitmore (1863), 1 Hem. & JI. 576 ; 82 L. J. Ch. 218 ; 10

Jur. N. H. 65 ; 10 L. T. 128 230

i>. Wooil (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 23 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 6 ; 01 L. T.

870; 38 W. R. 188; 54 J. P. 324 409

TABLE Of OASES,

oxxxiii

o

Southampton Brideo fo „ «^', 41. " . ••
89W. K.292; 55 J. p. 872 ' ^ ' *^' ^'^- ^* L. T. 278

318
S4g

18S

208
6

504

196
44

202

1W8
209

163

(i06

629

520
173

132

606

■■ — '<"', oo J, i; a72 ■ ' "^ ^' i. -itV;

88 L- J. Q. B. 207 "■ ^""P'™ Urban Council (ISOsi'

r"-»a%^B: S ^50^' " - a-): 9 B. 55 . 22

bowerbyt, Smith (1874), L.B 9c'p '■oj" .„;■ " e'9, 655
31 L. T. 809 , 23 W. b! 79 ' "'^^ ■ ^3 L. J. c. P. 290 ;

002, 546, 547

i72
630

TABLE OF CASES.

Spackman, He (1890), iM Q. B. D. 728 ; 69 L. J. Q. B. 806; 62

L. T. 849 ; 88 W. B. 497 ; 7 M. B. B. 100

Spackmon's Case (1849), 1 McN. & G. 170; 18 L. J. Ch. 261 ..
Spenocr v. Metrop. Bd. of Works (1882), 22 Ch. D. 142; C2

L. J. Ch. 249; 47 L. T. 459; 81 W. B. 847

Spice 1). Bacon (1877), 2 Ex. D. 463 ; 46 L. J. Ex. 713 ; 36 L. T.

896; 25 W. B. 840

Spioer f. BarnarJ (1859), 1 E. & E. 874; 28 L. J. M. C. 176; 5

,Tur. N. S. 961; 7 W. R. 467; 117R. E. 497

Spiers * Pond v. Bennett, [1896] 2 Q. B. 65 ; 65 L. J. M. 0. 144 ;

74 L. T. 697 ; 44 W. E. 510 ; 60 .T. P. 487 . . . . 68, .•)9,

SpiUbury v. Mi-,klethwaitc (1808), 1 Taunt. 146; 9 E. E. 717 ..
Spittall V. Brook (1887), 18 Q. B. D. 426 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. 48 ; 66

L. T. 864; 85 W. E.620; 1 Fox22

S. S. B , Be, [1906] 1 Ch. 724

Stable, Be, [1919] V. 10

Stacey v. Liutell (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 291 ; 48 L. J. M. C. 108 ; 40

Ii T 053' 27 W. II. 551 •• ■• •'

Stollard V. Marks (1878),' 3 Q. B. 1).'412 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 91 ; 88

L. T. 566 ; 26 \V. li. 694

Stamp, Ei-^. (1846), 1 DeG. 846 ..

Stundanl Manufacturing Co., Be, [1891] 1 Ch. 627 ; 60 L. J. Ch.

292; 64 L. T. 487 ; 89 W. E. 369, C. A 01,

Stanford r. Roberts, [1901] 1 Ch. 440

Stanley v. Dodd (1822), 1 D. & E. 897 ; 2 D. & U. 800 ..

V. Western Insurance Co. (1868), L. K. 8 Ex. 71 ; 37 L. ,T.

Exch. 215; 16 W. E. 869; 17 L. T. N. S. 613

^ ,., Wild (1900), 69 Ii. J. Q. B. 318

Stapleton v. Haymen (1864), 2 H. & C. 918 ; 38 L. J. Ex. 170 ;

10 Jur. N. S. 497 ; 12 W. E. 317

Storey i'. Chilworth Gunpowder Co. (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 90 ; 69

L. J. M. C. 18 ; 62 L. T. 78 ; 38 W. E. 204 ; 64 J. P. 436 ; 17

CoxC. C. 55

Stead V. Carey (1845), 1 C. B. 496 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 177 ; 9 Jur,

511

Stcavenson r. Oliver (1841), 8 M. k W. 284 ; 5 Jur. 1064 ; 10

L. J. E.x. 3.')8

Steed t>. Henley (1824), 1 C. & P. 674

Steel <i. Partford Loc. Bd. (1891), 60 L. J. Q. B. 256 ..
Steele v. Brannan (1872), L. R. 7 C. P. 261 ; 41 L. J. M. C. 85 ;

26 L. T. 509 ; 20 W. R. 607 106,

V. Midland Ey. Co. (1866), L. E. 1 Ch. 282 ; 12 Jur. N. S.

218; 14L. T. 8; 14 W. E. 867

Steinson II. Heath (1694), 3 Lev. 400

Stephens v. Mysore Reefs Mining Co. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 20.j ,.

,■. Eobinson (1832), 2 C. & J. 209

Stephenson .;. Higginson (1851), 8 H. L. C. 688, H. L

Stettin, The (1862), Br. & L. 199 ; 31 L. J. Adm. 208 ; 0 L. T.

618

09
.'■i92

657

BOl

107

18C
6J12

117
Hi
127

21 'i
177

:ilf,

70

406

107
249

195

395

728
697
720

TABLE OF CASES.

^.. Wie (1848), „ Q. h\}^i,W-^ 3 ..^^. C47,
no, ,1852,, 1 E * ,, 22; 22 L. J. Q.B. i /"le J„V

nr^jnSn'".Coi^MI8ri,lC.->36
^-t"-^-V8iribl3.^;^.«-««tv\^~

w.'^T^'r*' " «• ^- ^-216,. e ,,..-.-. « -ho^.t'

«'^t\''S."S4;f'"''J^'^-«-«" :.■ ■■ ^44
^^i:f^?!'^-«4«^^!,-^|".:K.B.a„,8.

tokes' Trusts, iJs (18721 r k .ovf"* ■• ..

.ne».B.„ae58,H.B.„.504-: 27 £:,.Q;i3. «,,;,,„■

I- J-C.P.187; 86L T 2ra o\*",^'S'' » C. P. D -9^: fg
29 i 26 W. B. 829 • ^*'' = *' ^- J. Q. 13. 266 ; 88 L T

«-mrB'"'^1?<j'«-«-'«=>L.j:Q.B:8io:-63i,,i'

CX.YXV

Plot

225
710

■i, 718

294

82B

c:.2

025
561

889

587

172

528

231
637

612

840

522

674

419
644

66
381

241

118

Cxxxvi TABLE OP CASES.

PAOK

Straohan v. Univenal Stock Exchange, [189«1 A. C. IM ; 65
L. J. Q. B. 178 ; 74 L. T. 468 i 44 W. B. 497 ; 60 J. P. 488,

H. L ISU

StradUne i>. Morgan (1658), Flow. 204 110

Strakerv. »Gynald8(1888),UQ. B. D.aea ir>0

Strattord Union Conuoil v. Hanoheiter, tic. By. Co. (iiiOS),

ll. O. B. 688 6S:i

Streatle.v, IntlieGood8of{1891), 60L. J. P. 06.. 69, Ol'i

Strettoii's Derby Brewery v. Derby (Mayor), [1894] 1 Ch. 481 ;

68 L J. Ch. 185 ; 69 L. T. 791 ; 43 W. B. 688 .. .. 62S

StrioklMd r. Hayes, [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 ; 68 L. J. M. C. BP ; 74

L. T. 187 ; 44 W. B. 898 ; 18 C. C. C. 244 ; 60 J. P. 164 .. Wi,

m

Strother v. Hutchinton (1888), 4 Bing. N. C. 83 ; 5 Scott 846 ;

6 D. P. C. 288 ; 8 Hodges 294 ; 2 Jur. 16 ; 7 L. J. C. P. 1 .. 451
Stroud V. Wandsworth Bd. of Works, [1894] 2 Q. B. 1 ; 68 L. ,1.

M. C. 88; 70L. T. 190; 42W. R85r.; 58J. P. 652 .. 231

Stmlda 1'. Watson (1884), 28 Ch. D. 800 ; 54 L. J. Ch. 626 ; 52

L. T. 129 ; 33 W. E. 118 "12

Sturgis V. Darell (1860), 4 H. * N. 622 ; 28 L. .1. Ex. 866 and 6

H. & N. 120 ; 29 L. J. Ex. 472 ; 6 .Tur. N. S. 1861 ; 118 B. B.

652 408, Olo

Submarine E. 14, iic, [1917] P. 85 Wi

Suburban Hotel Co., He (1867), L. U. 2 Ch. 737 ; 86 L. J. Ch.

710 ; 17 L. T. 22 ; 15 W. R. 1096 .IM

Suche & Co., Ite (1875), 1 Ch. D. 48; 46 L. J. Ch. 12 ; 38 L. T.

774; 24 W. E. 184 UM

Sully V. Atty.-Genl. (18o ;, 5 H. J£ N. 711 ;• 29 L. J. Ex. 404 ; 6

Jur. N. S. 1018 ; 8 W. E. 472 270

Summerlea Iron Co. v. Thomson, [1918] S. C. (J.) 84, Soo. ,, i:w,

202, 210
Summers v. Holbom Bd. of Works, [1893] 1 Q. B. 612 ; 62 L. .1.

M. C. 81; 67 J. P. 826; 68 L. T. 226; 41 W. U.

4,6 »

Sunderland Bd. v. Frankland (1878), L. B. 8 Q. B. 18; 42

L. J. Q. B. 18 ; 28 L. T. 18 023

Sunderland Gdns. v. Sussex (1881), 8 Q. B. D. 99 ; 51 L. J. M. C.

88 ; 46 li. T. 98 ; 80 W. E. 887 ; 46 ,T. P. 875 .. .we

Supervisors u. U. S. (1866), 4 Wallace, 435 .. .. 439,441

burtees V. Ellison (1829), 9 B. & C. 702 72H

Sussex Peerage (1844), 11 CI. * F. 85 ; 8 Jur. 793, H. L. 1, 0, 78

250, 200, 501
Sutton V. Sutton (1888), 22 Ch. D. 515 ; 62 L. J. Ch. 338 ; 48 L. T.

96;81W. E. 869 62,73,76,303

Sutton's Case (1627), 10 Eep. 31a W

Swaina v. Wilson (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 252; 69 L. J. Q. B. 76 ; 62

L. T. 809; 38 W. B. 261 ; 54 J. P. 484 .. .. 702, 704

Swan V. Sanders (1881), 50 L. J. M. C. 67 ; 44 L. T. 424 ; 29

W. E. 688 ; 14 Cox C. C. 666 4V4

TABLK OK CASES.

Syors i>, Conquest (1878), 37 J. p. 842

Symingtons rctitionors (190S), 48 Sc. L. 1!.' 157 So
byred ». Canuthora (1858), E. B. & K. 469; 27 L J Mr -aa-
4.Tur. N. S.949J 118 n. R. 782 !-• J. M. C. 278;

CXXXVlt

PAOB
470

188
260

454
726
102
211

864
592

675

TaWoLe ™,.So^. „.^KnigU,^tJ^892, A.C.208; 62 L.J. a. B.

66 J. P. 596 ; 17 T. I, B 698 "''• ^- "' • "" W. B. 44 ;
Talbot ;;^Shrow»^bury (1878), L. B. 16 Ec^.'^ ; 42 L. J. Ch. 877'

''T\r^!''JS » ^t^^«'^^ 2 ^- ^- B: 78 ; -28 L. J.

850,

L.J.Q.B.80; 67L. T.
656,

L. T. 696; 26 W. B. 692
Tate V. Wemngg (1790), 8 T. B. 681
Tatham v. Reeve, [18981 1 t). B. 44 • (

Tattle V. Orunwood (1826), 3 Bine. 498
Tawny'B Case (1704), 2 Salk. 681 .

~~866?i'rw! ^"52^ ""■ t^- ""'• ^ ^■■^- <J- »• '<^" SI'-i"

f. Crowland Gas Co. (1854), 11 Ex 1 -9 r t' b 10^.7 o.'.

L. J. Ex. 264 ; 18 Jur. 918*' 1(4 BE 8^ ''*' = **

""^TTsKl,'"^^- '''■' " ^- ^- «• ''"'■• ^ L: J. Ex.

298

705

803

414

851
209

693
727
866

228

674

119

697

481

726

121

CXXXVIII

TABLE OP CA8EF.

Taylor r. Nowman (1868), 4 B. ft S. 08 ; 82 L. J. M. C. 180 ; 9 Cox

C. C. 814 ; 8 L. T. 4M ; 11 W. K. 703 74, 167

V. OMhnm (1877), i Ch. D. 895 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 103 ; 8fi L. T.

696 ; 25 W. R. 808 72,801

V. Oram (1862), 1 II. » 0. 870 ; 81 L. J. M. C. 282 ; 8 Jur.

748; 7 L.T. 68; low. B. 800

V. I'hillipB (1802), 8 Ka«t 15S ; 0 B. B. B7S

II. Hcoera (1881), 00 L. J. M. C. 182; 45 L. T. 814 ..

I'. St. Mary Abbottir (1H71), L. R. 6 C. P. 809 ; 40 L. J. C. P.

45 ; 23 L. T. 498 ; 19 W. B. 109 ; 1 Hop. & C. 421 ..
", Smettoi. (1888), 11 Q. B. D. 207 ; 62 L. J. M. 0. 101 ; 48

J. P. 86

V. Taylor (1876), 1 Ch. D. 426 ; 8 Ch. D. 145 ; 46 L. J. Ch.

878, 848 ; 25 W. B. 279 ; 86 L. T. 450

Teathcr, i> p. (1850), 1 L. M. * P. 7 ; 19 L. J. M. C. 70
Tempest v. Kilner (1846), 8 C. 11 249 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 10
Temiaiit v. Bell (1846), 9 Q. 11. 084 ; 16 L. J. M. C. 81 ; 10 Jur.

946

I'. RawlingB (1879), 4 C. P. 1>. 183 ; 27 W. B. 682 .. 656, 677

1'. Smith. [1892] A. C. l.W ; 61 L. J. P. C. 11 ; 66 L. T. 827 ;

S6J. P. 596

i: Union Bank of Canada, [1894J App. Ca«. 81 ; 68 L. J.

P. C. 25 ; 69 Ij. T. 774

Tepper t.. Nichols (1865), 18C. B.'N. S. 121 ; 1 H. & P. 202 ; 84

h. .T. n. P. 61 ; 11 Jur. N. S. 18 ; 11 L. T. 509 ; 18 W. R.

270 682, 638

Teman, Jle (1864), 5 B. 4 S. 645 ; 88 L. J. M. C. 201 ; 9 Cox C. C.

522; 11 Jur. N. S. 84 ; 10L.T.499; 12W.E.858..
Terrell, Be (1878), 4 Ch. D. 298 ; 47 L. J. Bank. 60 ; 88 L. T. 248 ;

26 W. B. 470 ; 46 L. J. Bank. 47

Terry v. Brighton Aquarium Co. (1875), L. B. 10 Q. B. 806 ; 44

ii. J. M. C. 17S; 82Ij. T. 458

r. Teny (1916), 82 T. L. B. 167

Tewkesbury v. Twyning (1682), 2 Bott. 1 ; BuIb. 849
Tewkesbury Union v. Upton-on-Sevem Union (1918), 88 L. J.

K.B. 87

Thacker v. Hardy (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 685 ; 48 L. J. Q. B. 289 ; 89

L. T. 596 ; 27 W. B. 168

Thames, Conservators of v. Hall (1868), L. B. 8 C. P. 415 ; 87

L. J. 0. P. 168 ; 18 L. T. 861 ; 18 W. R. 971 .. .. 811, 314
Thames Haven Co. v. Boso (1842), 4 M. ft O. 662 ; 2 D. N. S. 104 ;

574

290

117

600

520
IH'i
573

60H

503

252

128
227

574

1C2
216

116

210

8 KaUw. Cas. 177 ;

5 Scott N. R. 624 ; 12 L. J. C. P. 90

R. R. 599

Thebcrge v. Laudrv (1877), 2 App. Cas. 102 ; 46 L. J. P. C. 1

Ji. T. 640 ; 25 \V. R. 216

Theta, The (1894), 63 L. .T. Adm. 160

Thiskell c. Cambi, [19191 W. R. 195

Thistleton f. Frewcr (1862), 81 L. J. Ex. 230

Thoday, Ex. p. (1877), 2 Ch. D. 229, 797 ; 45 L. J. Bank. 64, 159 ;

84 L. T. 261, 705 S«

61

.. 202
85

251, 232

.. 2«

.. 70

.. 3M

fAULt OP CASES.

cxxxix

349
16

70

127
847

81

726
«7

"•Hivrveyag, .-ix, •• ^^ ''• '^^ J'- M^ , 108 L. t! "^
B. R77.'''' >• <« H. 4 N. 8si, 28-i, , ^ 25 ««, 346
^B. Hillns7ni T "■; •• "•"•"••0.168; lis

rh„ '" ^r; «■ sfis ^'"'• *"' «> I- J. Ch. M7 •■ w r "t .,i- <^

riorne, i& „. noj., •• - .. .. "• . <H I,. T. 615 ;

"32 i 2«V. rlw' ''''• »• «'•■ « 1^. i: BU.1S8 . -35 L. r- ««

; 23

'"by. Zi ,:■ ^- »2r :"' "•' ^- -f- Q- B. 248; 45

Jj.^-Si«'7.|^^^ai^^i8.r..e;i,«,

670

686

270
588

543

12
118

314

101

.■"■ .. > '•• IT. «. 45

572
698,599

cxl

TiBLK or 0ABK8.

Thwnites v. Wilding (IbJI), 13 Q. B. O. 4 ; S3 L. J. Q. B. 1 ^ 49

L. T. 8«6; 83W. R.80 U'j

Tidd, Ui, [1898] 8 Ch. IMj 63 L. J. Cli. 916; «9 L. T. 3SS; 43

W. R3» 454

Tidoy V. Mollett (1H64), 16 C. B. N. H. 398 : 88 L. J. C. P. 33S :

lOJur. N. 8. 800: lOL. T. 880; liW. It. 803 .. sea

Tldawell, Se (1887), 66 L. J. Q. B. 048; ST L, T. 416; 8S W. II.

669 658

Timmlns ('. TimniiM, [19191, P. 75 jjj

Tiiiunii V. WillianM (184^ , 8 Q. B. 418 ; 3 O. & D. 631 ; II L. J.

q. n. 210; 6.Tiir. 1013 2a0

Tiadell i'. Combe (1N88), 7 A. * £. 788 ; 8 N. <k P. 39 ; 1 W. W. ft

H. Sj 2Jur. 83 oh?

Titmus 1. Littlowood, [1916] 1 K. II. 373 Ul

Tobacco Hpo Makers v. Woodroffb (1836), 7 U. & C. 888; (i D. ft

11.680 63,806

Tobiii V. n. (1H68), 14 C. B. N. S. 605; 83 L. J. C. P. 316; 0 Jur.

N. B. 1180; 8 li. T. 893, 780; 11 W. R. 701, 915 .. 250

To<ld V. Robinson (1885), 14 Q. B. D. 789; 54 L. J. Q. B. 47 ; 53

L.T. 120; 49.1. P. 278 40fi

Tollomache's Estate, *» '9171 P. 246 127

Toilet V. Thomas (1871), 24 ',. T. 508 rm

Tomkinsu.Ashby (1821,, liB.ftC.541; 9D.&R. 543.. .. 506

Tomlinson i: Bullock (1879), 4 Q. 11. U. 280; 48 L. J. M. C. 95 ■

40L. T. 459; 27 W. B. 552 610

V. Consolidated Credit Corpn. (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 185 ; 62

L. T. 162 ; 88 W. n. 118; 64 J. P. 644 .... 198
Tompson v. Browne (1883), 8 M. ft K. 82 ; 6 L. ,1. Ch. 64 .. 22:1
Toms 1). Clacton (1898), 78 L. T. 712 ; 46 W. R.629 ; 62 J. P. 603 510
V. Cuming (1846), 7 M. * Q. 88 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 67 ; 9 Jur.

90 138

i>. Wilson (1868), 4 B. ft. 8. 442 ; 82 L. J. Q. B. 882 ; 10 Jur.

N. S. 201 ; 7 L. T. 421 ; 11 W. R. 117 60H

Tone Conservators v. Ash (1839), 10 B. ft C. 849 ; 34 R. R. 441 . . 617
Toomor v. London Ch. * D. By. Co. (1877), 3 En. D. 480: 47

L. J. Ex. 276 ; 87 L. T. 161 ; 38 W. R. 81 530

Tooth i>. Power, [1891] A. C. 391 157

Toronto (Corporation) v. Virgo, [1896] A. C. 8" ; 65 L. J. P. C.

4; 73 L. T. 449 524

Tottenham Board v. Howell (1876), I Ex. D. 514 ; 46 L. J. Ex

482 ; 25 W. R. 185 34s

Toutill t>. Douglas (1868), 88 h. J. Q. B. 66 ; 8 L. T. 426 .. 731

Towler v. Chatterton (1829), 6 Bing. 258 ; 8 M. ft P. 619 ; 81

R. E. 411 897

Towns V. Wentworth (1S58), 11 Moo. P. C. 648 99

Townscnd II. Deacon (1849), 8 Exch. 706 ; 6 D. ft L. 659 ; 18

L. J. Ex. 298 ; 18 Jur. 866 409

Tracey v. Pretty. [1901] 1 K. B. 444 ; 70 L. J. K. B. 234 ; 88

L. T. 767 ; 49 W. R. 282 ; 60 J. P. 196 ; 19 C. C. 0. 098 .. 2:11
Traill ». McAllister (1890), 20 L. E. Ii. 024 783

TAIII.K 0|^ ..Asijg.

Mil

Ml:

3sr,

. ML. T. 188; I8\v il 7«?' Vi' ^^ «< L. J. Q J) 480.
^«- Browne (1846) 8 C B 1?7^' /; ^ "^^ "<>

I- J. C. p. 6*6 /a«T;T' 8^- Av »' *„C- P- D. 40, 46 ""

S"l '«"- '"'• • " * ^- "« ' « ^-- «• -'-=?•"

W».Thoma,,l82fl),McClel.*Y„9" " - -680'

096,785

"cMeld U D r .. r. , ^'

. .88 L. J. Q. B iSST^s°iT«,S *•'=' Co., [18991 2 O B B<u .

1.8. 482, 497'

10

►iov

178

41

108

600

513

630
224

671

247

887
176

685

41

420

cxUi

TABLK OV UA«KK

Unglcy o. Uugley (IM7), B Ob. 1). SW; « L. J. Cli. HM: 87

L. T. 5a i an W. R. 788 434

Union Hank ,: I^nnnnton (1H78), 8 C. P. D. MS j 47 L. J. C. P.

40»; 8f. li. T.aSH IS"

Union H. U. Co. of N«w Zetland v. Molbotirno Coiuiun. (1884), 9

Ann. Cm. 868 ; 08 L. J. I'. 0. 89 ; 60 I-. T. 887 ; B A«p. M. C.

aiH, I'.C •■»

United Alkiili Co. ». Uiniinon, |lg94| 3g.ll.ll8; 68L.J. M.C.

Ul i 71 L. T. 'iM; 43 W. R. 009 ; OH .1. 1'. 607 .. 415

Uniteil Ijand Comi«uy f. G. K. Hv. Co. (1H70), I.. R. 10 Ch. 086 ;

44 L. J. Ch. 880 ; 1)1) I-. T. 898 1 'ill W. K. 8U6 . . . . .'.id

''ulte<l HtateK r. Cooaibs (1888), 12 TulcM 72 .. 464, 460, Ml

I'. FUhcr (IHOfl), 2 Cruncli 808 ; 8 IJ. 890 . . 75, 148, 149, *i:i

f. OoodiiiK (IH27), 12 Wheat. 460 Wl

f. Hftrtwell(lH67),B Wall. 880 0, 460, 4N4

I'. Helen, The (IHIO). fl Crunch 208 7.«J

i. Ilowiml (IHIH), H Wiuth. 1140 'Jti.'.

|i. KcibIiT (1829), lliild. 10 ai.'i

1'. Kirhy (1888), 7 Wall. 482 177

.•. KHntock (1H20), .I Wheat. 144 26.-,

». McLaiu (IHOO), -JHrcv. 44«(Tenne«»ce) 467

t. Morris (1H40), 14 retcru 484 Wi

ir. rainier (181H), a Wheat. 610 70, 260, r,,-,7

e.Thlrlynix barrels or wine (1870), 7 lllntcht. 459.. .. COS

V. Wiltberger (1820), 0 Wheat, 76, 95 . . 6, 468, 464, 4(i.-i

— V. Wooil (1840), 18 Peters H42 ««»

Univcmal Stoek Exchange e. Stmchan, L189«| A. C. 160; 65

L. .1. g. B. 429 ; 74 L. T. 468; 44 W. U. 497 ; 80 .1. P. 468,

H.L Idfi

Unwin i.. Hanson, 11891] 2 Q. H. 115; 60 L. .1. Q. 11. 582; U,")

L. T. 611; 89 W. B. 087; 00.1. P. 662 *

Upame, The (1912), 81 L. J. P. 110 IM

Upflll r. Wright, 110111 1 K. B. 606 ; 80 li. ,T. K. B. 254; 108

L. T.884 W'l

Uppom n. aumner (1779), 9 W. Bl. 1251 'iW

Utquhart, Be (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 728 ; 09 L. J. Q. U. 864 ; 88

W. B.612; 7M.B. K.94

Urwin v. Hanson, [1891] 2 Q. B. US ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 081

V.

Vale of Neath Colliery v. Fumess (1876), 46 L. J. Ch. 276
L. T. 2S1 ; 24 W. B. 681

Volentini v. Canali (1889), 24 Q. 1!. 1). 166 ; 58 L. .1. Q. B.
61L.T.781; 88W. B. 881; 64J. P. 295 ..

Vallance v. Falle (1884), 18 Q. B. D. 109 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 469
L. T. 1 58 : 82 W. K. 770 ; 48 J. P. 619 ; 5 Asp. M. C. 280

Vallejo V. Wheeler (1774), Cowp. 148 ; Lotfl. 631

Van Bandau, ilV ^. (1846), 1 Ue O. 808

Vane i;. Vane (1874), L. B. 8 Ch. 883 ; 42 L. J. Ch. 299..

iXt

lUU

; 84

911

74;

376

1; 01

i 669,722
.. 1*

(B«

m

TABLK or VMKS.

'"""""• aympBon (18871 H vt v. ''''
i. CoUlory Co'. B?%ii.^- •/• Ch, 414

cxiiii

i;in

4(M
314

osa

333

IWO

IMA
277

, AW

V,

700

420
13

v^^^.'S^ii^^iJ^^-^^^-^VVi.JS,

fodmore r. Dear (I87ii r n 5: „ *■ "• B- R. i

^n^-jW«,.e™a804UEi.tloriS»ii.K.ii.3«r7BK
amewright, «o ntusi i r..i;. „ ■■ .. ■ ". «.

t)f^e«y^;^e74r.i..c..^:^'

--o.s(lS3,.lB.«^.,,^,e;l^,.^,,i-,,„;^^.

U04
60

nor,

163

087
S41

633

2S

Oil

484

269
702

cxliv

TABLE OF (AaHB.

283,

103

Wako V. Shefliold (Mayor of) (1880), 12 QB. IX 1«; M
L. J. M.C.I; OOL. T.76; 82W. B.82; 48 J. P. 197 842,

Wakefield, *c. Bank K. Yatea, [1916] 1 Ch. 462

Walker .'. Constable (1798), 8 Wils. '25 .. •• ■• "

v. CrVBtal Palace Gas Co., 1 18911 2 Q. B. 800 ! 60

L. J. Q. B. 781 ; 65 L. T. 86 ; 39 W. B. 716

V. Goe (18«9), 8 H. 4 N. 896 ; 4 H. & N. 850 ; ^ L. J. Ex.

184 • 6 Jnr. N. 8. 787 ; 117 R. E. 751 ; 118 R. K. 488

THobbMl889), 28 Q. B. D. 488; 59 L. J. Q. B. 98; 88

W R 68

".Himer (1876), 1 Q. B. D. 4 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 84 ; 88 L. T.

BOl

V.R^tter, [1911U K. B. 1108; 80 L. J. K. B. 628; 104

^^ RiSLiwn (1887), a'k. 4 W. 889; 1 M. 4 hV251;'6

L. J. Ex. 229 ; 46 R. R. 782 .. .. .. .. »1

V. Stretton (1896), 44 W. R. 626 ; 60 L. J. 818 .. ..

WaUace v. AU.-Gen. (1864), L. R. 1 Ch. 1 ; 85 L. J. Ch. 124 ..

— V. Blaokwell (1866), 3 Drew 688 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 644 ; 3 Jnr
N. 8. 666 ; 106 R. R. 426

V. King (1788), 1 H. Bl. 13 .. ■■,, ■•„

Wallgiave v. Tebba (1866), 2 K. 4 .1. 813 ; 25 L. J. Ch. 241

TOlUv. Pratt, [1910] 2 K. B. 1008 ; 79 L. J. K. B. 1018 ;

Wahniiley v. MUne (1860), 7 C. B. N. S. 116 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 97 ;

6Jnr. K. S. 125

Walsh !• Lonsdale (1882), 52 L. J. Ch. 2

_ «. Sonttwell (1851), 2 L. M. 4 P. 78; 6 Ex. 150; 20

L. J. M. C. 165

Walsinaham's Case (1679), Plowd. 562 ■••■„, ■• , ■•
Walter r. Steinkopff, [1892] 8 Ch. 489 ; 61 L. J. Ch. 521 ; 67 L. T.

184 • 40 W. B. 699

Walton, B^^p. (1881), 17 Ch.D. 746; 60 L. J. Ch. 6B7 ; 44 L. T

1'30W. B. 396 m, ilM,

Wandsworth v. Golds, [1911] 1 K. B. 60; 80 L. J. K. B. 126;

108 L. T. 668 ; 74 . I. P. 464

Wandsworth Board of Works «-. United Telephone Co. (1884), 18

S B. D. 904 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 449 ; 61 L. T. 148 ; 32 W. R.

776 ; 48 J. P. 676 '™'

Wanklyn v. WooUett (1847), 4 C. B. 86; 72 B. R. 645 ■■ ^■■
W^S Bd. V. Hill (1868), 18 C. B. N. 8. 479; 32 L. J. M. C.

13679 Jnr. N. 8. 972; 7 L. T. 744 ; 11 W. E. 368 .. ..

Wanthier«.WU8on(1911),27T.L.B.682 .. .. ..

Warbnrton v. Huddersfield Industrial Soc., [1892] 1 Q. B. 81 1;

61 L. J. Q. B. 422; 67L. T.48; 40 W. R. 846; 56 J. 1'.

458

V. Loveland (1828), Hud. * Bro. 628, Ir.

Ward «e (1868), 32 L. J. Q. B. 68

— iBeckam, 13 C. B. N. S. 668 ; 82 L. J. 0. P. 118 ; 9

Jur. N. S. 912

542,

708
458
604

607

724

14U

489

29J

.173
5211
244

611

460
221

48

173

350
457
867

5X9
224

590
142

m

TABLE OF 0A8B8.

oxlv

• C. 146: H jpr.

PAOB

719

157
675

381
15

W^k canal Co. .. Bi™u.gham Canal ci. (I876,, 48£. J Ei" ^'

3'«'ra^«•^-••-«=<i-.^•c.I^l«,si

!t4^ Pee™«, The (183., e-C. .p. .aa". « B. B. «,;
Wate^hou. „. Keen (18^, d^. ,a ^,- , ^-^ ^ -^ ..

^.atorto^n.Baker (1868,, L.B.8<i:B. 178, 37i.,.Q:B'6.-

''"te^'r.' r^^-li^o 0.-P. a«2= « £. ,. m: c. .e!™' '^

V»tson,iic(1890), 25 0. B D St/sot V ^ ■• •• 182,194

209j 88 W. K 667; 7 if BB ??^ * »• 894 ; 63 L. T
-.i(«(1892).6aL.J.Q.B'85 ■ •■ ■• 209,212

-rp^^1\ ^. ia^2"iaV»ii"- '^^ '■ <^--^ " ""'

:''tex^nr{^TK^«88''^ ----•"-■«. 96-.

a«a. Worth (.862), , H. AC. Ssrs, L. J. Ex.' 448 ■ 6

""gh ». Middleton (1858), 8Ex SM- Wr t ;;
'J-mell V. Bead (1794). 6 T. B 6W b R R «,f '• '"

-'"..«e..i,^.B„a«lofT«de,.9U),83L.j:K.B.-i886

620
151
173
639
422

688
404
512

695
578
227

ii

0x1 vi

TABLE OF OASES.

Webb v. Bird (1882), 10 C. B. N. S. 268; 4 L. T. 443; 9 \V. E.

899 and 18 G. U. N. B. 841 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 83S ; 8 Jur. N. b.

621

i: Painuimnor (1838), 8 M. & W. 478; 6 D. V. C. 049; 7

L.J. Ex. 140

V. Knisht (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 530; 46 L. J. M. C. 264; 36

L. T. 791 ; 26 VV. n. 14

11. Manchester E. Co. (1889), 4 My. & C. 116 ; 48 R. R. 28

Webster ». Southev (1887), 86 Ch. D. 9; 56 L. J. Ch. 785; S6

L. T. 879; 85"W. U. 623; 62 J. P. 86 32.5,

i: Webster (1858), 27 L. J. Ch. 115

Wocka « Wray (1868), L. R. 3 Q. B. 212 ; 87 L. J. Q. B. 84 ; 17

L. T. 498; 16 W. B. 399; 9B.&S. 62

Welch V. Nash (1807), 8 Eiist 894; 9 B. B. 478

Woldon V. De Bathe ( 1884), 14 Q. B. D. 339 ; 54 L. J. Q. D. 1 1 8 ;

63L. T. 620; 88 W. H. 828

V. Winslow (1884), 13 Q. B. D. 784; r,3 L. .7. Q. B.628; 51

L. T. 648 ; 88 W. B. 219

Welforf 1'. Beazley (1747), 8 Atk. 508

Wellington (Mayor) v. Lower Hult (Mayor), [1904] A. C. 773 ; 78

L. J. P. C. 80; 91 L. T. 689 ; 20 T. L. B. 712
Wells i>. Kingston-on-Hull Corporation (1875), 44 L. J. C. P. 257 ..
V. London and Tilbury By. Co. (1877), 5 Ch. 1). 126 ; 37

L. T. 802 ; 25 W. R. 325

V. McSherry, [1914] 1 K. B. 616

II. Porter (1886), 2 Bing. N. C. 722 ; 8 Scott 141 ; 2 Hodges

42; 6L. J. C. P. 250

Welsh V. West Ham (Mayor), [1900] 1 Q. B. ,■124 ; 69 L. J. Q. B.

114; 82L. T. 262

Wcmperis, Bf, [1914] 1 Ch. 502

Wendon v. L. C. C , [1894] 1 Q. B. 812 ; 68 L. .1. M. C. 117; 70

L.T.94

Wcnlock V. Biver Dee Co. (1885), 10 A. C. 854, H. L

Wenman i\ Lyon * Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 192 ; 60 L. .1. Q. B. OOil ;

65L. T. 136; 39 W.B. 519

Wcrle r. Colquhoun (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 753 ; 57 L. .T. Q. B. 823 ;

.'58 L. T. 756 ; 86 W. B. 613 ; 62 .1. P. 644

Wescomb's Case (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B, 110 ; 19 L. T. N. H. 897 ..
West V. Francis (1822), 6 B. * Aid. 787 ; 1 D. & R. 400 ; 24 B. li.

641 17S,

>•. Gwynne, [1911] 2 Ch. 15; 80 L. .7. Ch. 587; 104 L. T.

769 92,882,38.-,,

West Derby Guardians v, Metro. Life Assurance, [1897] A. C.

647 ; 66 L. .1. Ch. 726 ; 77 L. T. 284 ; 61 .1. P. 820, H. L. ..
West Ham o. Fourth City Bldg. Society, [1892] 1 Q. B. 6,54; 60

L. J. M. C. 128; 66 L. T. 350; 40 W. B. 440; 60 .1. 1'.

488 281,

West Ham Corporation v. G. F,. Rv. Co. (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 340
West Ham Overseers v. lies ilS83), 8 App. Cas. 886; .52

L. .T. Q. B. 650 ; 49 L. T. 205 ; 31 W. U. 928 ; 47 .T. V. 70S . .

07il
600

107

.53H

U;iH
4,55

606
36'J

402

402
512

125
16il

502
fiSl

612
151

58
055

271

117

290

3b:j

284

TABLE OP OASES.

,„ (1882), 7 App c"rire 5i J '?''r^* /"""I""' lly. Co
Western Natiouii Bank J re-.^Vi'si^l^, *?= « L T. Ml

Q. B 272; 64 U T. 548; M V^'n^Li *i- »• 804; 60 L. J.
Western Suburban, to BiiiHiL « ■ ?* '

oxlvii

PAOG

6IS

694

821
217

SOI

267

164
647
486

—■''..Watson, [1902I2K.B 717 ■'•"••"": oo.l.iMgg..
ya^txlrc"!'^ "• °'-<^°w I>.-ovi,icnt I„ve.,t,ne„t Co

WostmoreUnd, The (1846), 2 W. liob 3m' '^'"' '^^ '^- ^^^ • ■
Westover 1'. Perldns (lH,5Qi Q r- tV^ ,„"a-

w E^S",!- •'°™^ (1832), 8 B. A A.I 221 "^ • «2, 116, 122

75^r^rT:t^<\-«);-;Ci"v.7i;a8..-,,c.p. -

;^"^li.te/r??'^^1^-i---M.a8X;ll

Whcaton ». Maple ft Co., 1189.11 iri, .... '.o , •

L T. 208 ; "il W. S; 677 ^ ^''- ^ ■ ^^ ^- ^- Ch. 963 ; 69

'''mTllKtu,^''"'- ''«™>' ' Ci>- D. 375V 47 l: J. Ci-

w5Sf?o^„i:,«^Ul V^ "k ^^ i^- ?A?- •«■'■• ::

8 L. T. 317 ; 11 W. 1! 648 ' ^* = ^ ^'- ■'• «• P- 161

IVhitaker, Tfe, [1901] 1 ch 9- 7nr "r r.i.'„ „•

W. U. 106 . ^ "-"■"■ ™ r- J- Ch. 6 ; 88 L. T. 449 ; 49

\\liite,^j;p. (18«4),a,x..J lank 22 in T 'Vo""- **■**• 3,58 . .
702 ; 12 W. li. 890 ' 1" ''"''• N. S. 189 ; 9 L. T

— ,Rr, [IB13] I ch.23i ;;

118
118

86

247

084

ir.i

file

475

252

157
477

351

174
174

229

h

385
146

p-fil

If,

oxlviii

TABLE OF OABEB,

Whitow. Boot(1788), 2T. B.a74

- V. Feast (1872), L. B. 7 Q. B. 863 ; 41 L. J. U. C. 81 ;

26

785

liJO, 288, 643

L. T. 611; 20\V. B. 382

V. Fellowcs (see Whitehouse v. Fellowcs).

.). Fulham Vestry (18»6), 74 L. T. 425

V. Omnada SS. Co. (1896), 18 T. L. B. 1

V. Hindlcy Loc. Bd. (1876), L. B. 10 Q. B. 219; 44 L. J.

Q.B. 114; 82L. T. 460; 28W. E. 651

V. Moriey, [1899] 2 Q. B. 84 ; 68 L. J. Q. B. 702 ; 80 L. T.

761; 47 W.E. 688; 68 J. P. 860

V. Steel (1868), 12 C. B. N. S. 888 ; 82 L. J. C. P. 1 ; 5 L. T.

449

t>. Wright (1824), 8 B. & C. 278

Whiteohutch v. E. London By. Co. (1878), L. E. 7 Ex. 424 ; 27

L. T. 494; 21 W. E. 28

Whitehead v. Smithers (1877), 2 C. P. D. SS8 ; 46 L. J. M. C. 234 ;

87L. T. 878

Whitehouse i>. Fellowea (1861), 10 C. B. N. S. 780 ; 80 L. J. C. P.

806 ; 29 L. T. 168 ; 21 W. B. 898 173,611

Whiteley v. Barley (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 154 ; 87 L. J. Q. B. 648 ;

60L.T. 86; 36W. B. 828; 62 J. P. 595

V. Chappell (1869), L. E. 4 Q. B. 147 ; 88 L. J. M. C. 61 ; 19

L. T. 855; 17 W. E. 176

». Hcaton (1858), 27 L. J. M. C. 217

Whitfield V. Langdale (1876), 1 Ch. D. 61 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 177; 83

L. T. 592 ; 24 W. E. 813

Whithorne v. Thomas (1846), 7 M. ft Gr. 1

Lut. Beg. Cas. 126 J 14 L. J. C. P. " "
Whitley Partners, Be, Ex p. Callan.(1886), 82 Ch. D. 887

Ch. 640; 64 L. T. 912; 84 W. E. 606, C. A

Wigton V. Snaith (1851), 16 Q. B. 496; 20 L. J. M. 0. 110; 15

Jur. 848

Wilberloroe v. Hearfield (1877), 6 Ch. D. 709 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 684 ;

26W. B.8ei

WildBanger, The (1862), IJ.ftK. 180; OJur.N.S. 184; 82L.J.

Adm. 49 ; 11 W. E. "MS ; 7 L. T. 724 277

Wiley V. Crawford (1861), 1 B. ft S. 268; 30 L. J. Q. B. 319 ; 7

Jur. N. S. 948 ; 4 L. T. 663 ; 9 W. B. 741 664, 692

Wilkes V. Hungerford Market Co. (1886), 2 Bing. N. C. 281 . 724

Wilkinson v. Calvert (1878), 8 C. P. D. 860 ; 47 L. J. C. P. 679 ;

88 L. T. 818 ; 26 W. E. 829

V. Evans (1866), L. E. 1 C. P. 407 ; 35 Ij. J. C. P. 224 ;

Jur. N. S. 600 ; 14 W. E. 968 ; 1 H. & B. 662

Wilkinson's Settlement, iJe, [1917] 1 Ch. 620

Williams, £j: p. (1824), IS Price 678

, Be (1863), 2 E. & B. 84 ; 22 L. J. M. C. 125 ; 95 E. E. 446

Williams and Stepney, lie, [1891] 2 Q. B. 257 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 6,')6 ;

66 L. T. 208 ; 89 W. B. 588

Williams II. Allen, [1916] 1 K. B. 426

i 8 Scott N. S. 783
; 8 Jur. 1008

55 L. J

12

867

am

726

523

ur,

209

82
290

829

406

470
295

69

406

157

604

513
14

m

.Ml
395

TABLE OP CASES.

i'

cxlix

PAOI

607
fill
449

578
4.'>4

116

Sll

Sn,518

25

--:-Ca^?r<J^5r4''»lJ^l^:£c.N.s:,54.P.C. ■• •■
280 .. "»"). 6 Ch. D. 517 ; 46 L. J. Ch. 681 ; 20 W ii

~4S;'f'i°»^^-*''-^«=««L..;Q.«.Vaj„.x«
""uT^'^Se^"'''' ^- "■ ^ «• «■ ^^ ■• 4i- L. j.-k C Vo • "'

— »Pritchard(1790),4T H Q?o„ W

-S.^°^r6'>-'^« st:5?s7^J;tt2fWL T 25a.

~"'5^|^^?^I^^^?-«»»;2«i.J.Hi.2S6V5.u;

='7L.T£' foT'^*''™ ^^ Co. (.^, !,.•«. 8 i;.. „, •

~ ". Norris. nsMi Vi\k ^^■■'■Ex.S • ■ .''<'

47 W.r9^'f«g].«-^y; flc^ J-*"-»'r79L.T.415-. ^

'"'on ». Berkley (1,M2), Plow M8 n S" *"" • ■• Vl 177

~ "• G.p,« (1846), 5 ifoo. P. C. 879 P r - • • «6

~85/fr^i^&[rJ^'''>-^«='«2L.j.ch:a9or69LT

■^:?!"°?'/n-J;?3o"'*^'«««=^-j:Q.B.187;88

^^a-WH^^B;^=^ei..x<.B.-606,a7..i

164,289

642

617
138

.. 188
201,203
317, 527
869

858

390

87

12

687

J f

cl

TABLE or 0A8E6.

300

157

aw

Willinot V. lioso (1884), 8 EI. * Bl. 568 ; 3 C. L. R. 877 ; 18 Jur.

618 ; 23 L. J. «. B. 281 ; 97 B. R. 664

WiUock V. Noblo (1876), L. R. 7 H. L. 680 ; 44 L. J. Ch. 1146 ; 82

L. T. 419; 28W. R. 809

WUlon, Jle (1878), 8 Ch. D. 864 ; 47 h. J. Bank. 116; 88 L. T.

780; 28W.E. 682

V. , [1916] 1 K. B. 882

V. Halifax (1868), L. R. 8 En. 114 ; 87 L. J. Ex. 44 ; 17 L. T.

660; 16 W. B. 707 184,413,574

V. Knublcv (1806), 7 East 128 ; 8 Smith 128 89, 90, 449, 4.13

V. Marryat (1798), 8 T. H. 31 ; IB.* P. 480 ; 68 R. R. 104 111

V. Nightingale (1846), 8 Q. J. 1084 ; 10 Jur. 917 ; 15 L. .1.

Q. B. 809: 70R. B. 727 5J

1). Rankin (1866), L. R. 1 Q. R. 162 ; 6 B. & 8.208; 11 Jnr.

N S. 173; 84L. J. Q.B. 62; 18 W.R.404; !2L.T.20an(l

85 L. .T. Q. B. 208 ; 14 W. R. 198 ; 18 L. T. 564

„. Hastall(1792),4T. n. 757; 2 1!. U. 616

. V. Robertson (1865), 4 E. 4 B. 928 ; 24 I,. .1. Q. B. 185 ; 1

Jur. N, S. 765 ; 99 B. R. 827

V. West Hartlepool Co. (1865), 2 I>c G. .1. & S. 476 ; 84

L.J.Ch. 241 45,5,654

V. Wilson (1864), 6 H. L. Caa. 40; 28 L. J. Ch. 697; 101

R. B. 26 141

Wimbledon Local Board v. Underwood, [1892J 1 Q. M. 836; 61

L. J. Q. B. 484 ; 67 L. T. 65 ; 40 W. R. 040 ; 66 J. P. 088

Wimperis, J?e, [1914] 1 Ch. 602

Winch i>. Thames Conservators (1874\ L. K. 9 C. P. 878 ; 48

L. J. C. P. 167 ; 81 L. T. 128 ; 22 W. R. 879

Windsor * AnnapoUs Ry. v. R. (1886), 11 A. C. 607, P. C.

Wingfield*. Wingfield, [1919] 1 Ch. 462

V. (1878), 9 Ch. D. 668; 47 L. J. Ch. 768 ; 89 L. T.

227 ; 26 W. B. 711

Winterbottom v. Wright (1842), 10 M. 4 W. 109 ; 11 L. J. Ex.

415

Wiseman II. Cotten (1668), 1 Lev. 79

Withineton Loo. Bd. v. Manchester, [1898] 2 Ch. 19 ; 62 L. J. Oil.

898; 68 L.T. 880; 41 W.R. 806; 57 J. P. 840 ..

Withipole's Case (1628), Cro. Car. 184

Withnell v. Gartham (1796), 6 T. R. 888 ; 1 Esp. 828 ; 8 U. U.

218 .. .. ..

Wixon v.'Thomas, [1911], 1 K. B. 48; 80 L. .7. K. B. 104 ; 103

L. T. 780 ; 75 .7. r. 68 ; 8 L. G. E. 1042

Woking Urban Council (Basingstoke Canal) Act, Itfll, Jlc

(1914), 88 L. J. Ch. 201

Wolton V. Gavin (18.50), 16 Q. B. 48 ; 20 L. J. Q. 1). 78 ; 15 Jur.

329

Wolverhampton Waterworks v. Hawksford (1859), U C. B. N. S.

466; 31 L.J. C. P. 184; 8 Jur. N. S. 844 ; 6 L. T. 618
Wood, Ite (1872), L. U. 7 Ch. 302 ; 41 L. J. Bank. 21 ; 26 L. T.

118; 20 W. U. 403

0(14
229

222

ICl)
154

634
,5311
24

559

8fi8
5»2

5S9
56.S

247

W

OCIi

OCil

TABLE or CASES.

rAGK

661

I OS
876

. L- J. Q. B. 825 76 L T^i^Tll/','»^l ' «• «• 480- m

:"fel^5'77.oT^'^-"-^K.«'/c5^

™|^-^"isU86«,,,k*E:27«r28L.-,.M.cV«,,„j,',-

t*^^»o««MK;„.,i5. ^■w.ch.62i-; 2.;; ;,•■ «^

.oi:s^°s?^^'K'^---^82K.M:;c.2o.-.;^

Cli

878

21
878

473

496

43

267
347

58
2S6

par

olti

TABLE or CASES.

894

4N7
621

363
668

610

Wright ti. Oroenroyd (1861), 1 B. » S. 7S8 ! 81 L. J. Q. B. 4 ; 8 Jar.

N. S. 98j SL. T. 847

V. Hale (1860), 6 H. 4 N. 237 ; L. J. Ex. 40; 6 Jur. N. H.

1218; 8L. T.444; 9W. B. 187 400,403

V. Horton (1887), 12 App. Can. 871 ; 86 L. J. Ch. 878; 56

li. T. 782 ; 86 W. B. 17 ; 82 .7. P. 179, H. L. .. 669, 69H
V. Inglo (1886), 16 Q. B. D. 879 ; 68 L. J. M. C. 17 ; 64 L. T.

611; 84 W. B. 220; ro J. p. 486

w. I.egge (1816), 6 Ta..nt. 48

V. London General Omnibun Co. (1877), 2 Q. B. D. 271 ; 46

L. J. Q. II. 429 ; 86 L. T. 690 ; 28 W. E. 647

D. Maunder (1841), 4 Beav. 612

V. Mills (1869), 4 H. 4 N. 488 ; 28 L. J. Ex. 228 ; 6 Jur.

N. S. 771; 11811. B. 666

1'. Monarch Inveetmt. Soo. (1877), 6 Ch. D. 726 ; 46 L. J.

Ch. 649 164, 23H

V. rcarBon (1869), L. B. 4 Q. B. 882 ; 88 L. J. Q. B. 218 ;

20 L. T. 849; 17 W. B. 1099; 10 B. & S. 728 .. .. 60.'i
V. WUliams (1886), 1 M. 4 \V. 77 ; 1 Tyr. 4 O. 876 ; 1 Gale

410 ; 46 B. B. 268 17, 408

Wrigbtnp v. Qreenaore (1847), 10 Q. B. 1 ; 16 L. J. Q. B. 246 .. 8ia
Wroughton v. Turtle (1843), 11 M. 4 W. 861 ; 1 D. 4 L. 478 ; 18

L. J. Ex. 57 606

Wyatt V. Barwell (1818), 19 Vea. 489 ; 18 B. B. 286 . , 456

■ V. Gems, [1898] 2 Q. B. 226 ; 62 L. J. M. C. 168 ; 69 L. T.

466 ; 42 W. E. 28 ; 07 J. P. 666 3.16

V. Q. W. By. Co. (1865), 84 L. J. Q. B. 204 . . .. 635, 836

V. Metrop. B. of Works (1862), 11 C. B. N. S. 744 ; 81 L, J.

C.P.217 621

Wynne V. Middleton (1746), 1 WUs. K. B. 125 501

Yarmouth v. Simmons (1878), 10 Ch. D. 818 ; 47 L. J. Ch. 792 ;

88 L. T. 881 ; 26 W. E. 802 282,502

Yates, Be (1888), 88 Ch. D. 112 ; 57 L. J. di. 697 ; 89 L. T. 47 ;

86W. E. 668 174

V. Higgins, [1896] 1 Q. B. 166 ; 65 L. J. M. C. 81 ; 44 W. K.

836; 60 J. P. 88 474

V. E. (1886), 14 Q. B. D. 648 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 258; 62 L. T.

805 ; 88 W. E. 482 ; 49 J. P. 486 863,668

Ydun, The, [1899] P. 286; 68 L. J. P. 101 ; 81 L. T. 10; 8 Asp.

M. C. .151 400,413

Yeadon Loo. Bd. v. Yeadon Waterworks (1888), 41 Ch. D. 62; 68

L. J. Ch. 668; 60L. T. 850; 87 W. B. 860 444

Yearwood's Trusts, Jte (1877), 5 Ch. D. 546; 46 L. J. Ch. 478;

26W. E. 461 296

Yewens v. Noakes (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 885; 60 L. J. Q. B. 132; 44

L. T. 128; 28 W. E. 562; 45 J. P.468 48

TABI.t; OK 0A8KH.

oliii

PAflK

-».I.^8^,„ (Mayor) (.4,."/il;p"bl^J6„, i", ..^ »«

- B , , . .... gg^ ^^.^^ ^^

871
171

V. u. 287 .. ■ " -' • — '■"'•<' app. CM. 687 J 61 L. .1.

„ Q. B. 718 i 49 L. T 1 • fl? wS''-2,APP- Cm. 617 : 62 L J

g, «c. oewerage Board ». Benstead, [1906] I K B

^^..H«^o„a,C,898]8cL; 67 I,. .. CH. a70 , 7H

^7'^5f»^PP-Caa.4.i8, as".. .,.p. „ /"^ ,; , ^.. «

6<«, The (1888), IS P.ij. ,8^- " •• - .. ' 244

»«ve«.«. The (1866), S.r90..i„.£s.4.ii ■ ^, £

>"cW.En.pMy(,82l),4B.4Ald.6a2 ' 272,279

.. 607

i'i

TABLE OF STATUTES.

^1'

»Uei,.m Magna ChMta
» Hen. lit, Morton

I v^'V' y.f-' ""Ibridgo
Ed.I.,We.toiin.tcrl
I Ed. I., GloucoB««r
SEd. I., WMtminRteVa

7 Ed fr ^•,'j;'Jf'»«'<>rib"» in pa«i»
Ed. III.8t.j,„.6_„„„„j,j,^^jei»

SEd. III.Bt.4, c. 4, weta ..

rt. 6, 0. 2, treaton "

I M TIT . "• ?' Pravlwrt !.'

bl u" Jr "• ^^^ Prisonen ..
lUoh. II. 0. a, venue

Bioh. II. 0. 8, admlnJty ..
Bich. II. 0. «, pnemimire
len. IV. c. 10, jail

Sr'v ^' »• ^' »"PP«"lon'if riote
len. V. 0. 8, jurors .,

0. 4, jurtlces
■a. IV. 0. 4, imports

'In Vm°;*i fr«»d»l™t conveyance
Jen. VIII. 0. Ig, olerev
Jen. VIII, 0. 6, brid
len. VIII. c. 14, sut,
ten. Vni. 0. 10, uses

0. ao, ..

len. Vin. 0. H, clergy
, „„, <"• 1*. wines ..
[en. Vlir. c. 1, wiUs

0.9, land ".

iK H. Ti^V?*' "''"'ontiniianoes
M Hen. VIII. c. 6, will

bishops

48, 168, 258,

M,I«.4n9

2^8, 018
2nH, UOl
4.'il, 088
4-19, 4r,2
451, 002, 716
.. 4S2
.. 01.'-,
148, 144
.. 2.'>0
.. 449
.. 64
.. 479
96
.. 4S9
.. 4fil
.. 4fi9
.. 662
.. 684
96
. 4S1

.. 448

.. 661

.. 727

■. 876

■ . Sil4

176, 709

.. lis

• • 738
88, S78
.. 80S
.. 809
.. 04S
.. 1S6
.. 809
■■ 2S8
186, 157

«1vi TAULK OV HTATUTKH.

87 Hm. VIII. 0. 17, eoclcsiHttoikl juriiaictlon MS

88 Han. VIII., Dnke of Norfolk'n attaindar UHli

1 Ed. VI. 0. 13, hofw-itnlliu 1S7, 400, 4«7

S * H Ed. VI. 0. 1, pnnr-b<Mk OIM

c. 16, iiUe of officM VKI

0. IS, pubUo-booM 470,7011

1 * 3 Ph. A M. c. 13, diitnu 8.-,4

4 i S Ph. * M. 0. 8, ikbdaoUon 83, lOfl

1 ElU. 0, 1, ■upnmaay IWt

c. 3,ncu:u>ta aio

a ElliE. 0. 4, appnuUoe 13.1170

c. ^, wtii de conlumare rapiemlo „ .. OTtT

18 ElU. c. Ij, (ruudulent conveyance ., ., 113, 145, 87H

c. 7, biuikruuti 4'X

c. 10, ecclealiwUcal leasei .. 308, 398, 818, 817, 87fi, fiUU

c. 30, benefice 324

14 Elii. c. 11, eccleaiaatloal IcuMB 817, 8)H

18 Eli>. c. 11, eccleibMtieal leaaen 81'

3H ElU. c. 3, witchcraft (Irith) Tm

81 Eliz. c. S, penal action 5>I4

0. 6, ihuony .. .. iTt^

c. 13, aocesfloriefl 477

89 Eli/. 0. 5, hospital! IM

48 Eliz. c. 3, poor .. 71, 100, 184, 339, 246, 2H7, .',21,

072, 1162, IM, 710

0. 4, charitable UK> 53, 448, r>44

c. 8, coata 812,780

1 Joo. I. c. 11, bigamy 2.'i7

0. 15, builinipt , 432, 428

8 JftC. 1. 0. 10, conveyance of felons „ ,. 86

c. 13, fiah 581

7 Jao. I. c. 13, shop boolta 544

31 .lac. I. 0. 16, limitations .. 39,30,68,69,364,289,802,812,

818, 891, 897, 4Ce, 455, 458, S71, 6'M

c. 19, bankrupt 86

16 Car. I. c. 10, petition of right 291

13 Car. II. c. 17, clergy 15»

18 & 14 Car. II. c. 4, uniformity 50,586

c. 13, poor 387,881,425,707

33 & 38 Car. II. c. 1, Coventry Act 468

c. 9, costs 812

c. 3S, game 581,601

25 Car. II. c. 3, testa 20

39 Car. II. c. 8, Statute of Frauds .. 49, 69, 70, 350, 373, 384, 454.

Gil, 514, 615, 575

c. 7, Sunday Observance 2, 878, 584

81 Car. II. 0. 3, Habeas Corpus 1S9

1 W. 4 M. c. 18, toleration 352

3 W. & M. c. 6, landlord and tenant .. .. 55,800,450,679

TABI.K OV 8TATtrr».

aW.»M.o.H..,i„e
a W. » M. 0. 14, dobt

7 « S WUl. in, c. as, conveyanoti
B WUl. HI. 0. 88, fcliphsmy

»*»wui.ni.c°:rpir;^

4*6Anne,o.l»,lin,lt.Uoii;
» « B Anno, c. 14, inuae
8 Anno, 0. 18, brokon
7 Anno, o. IS, iunb»ii««do«
„ . «• JO, rogtatmtlon ..
B Anno, 0. 7, ouiionu

0. 14, tanUon

0. 19, oopjrright
»Amic,o. I0,po.t.oftoe

c. 14, gaming

0. 80, muidamua .'.'
10 Anne, c. a, churoh ..
12 Anno, o. 14, oxcreiio of trades

1 Coo. I. rt. a, 0. B, riot

» Geo. I. 0. 8, poor

0. 37, artlfloor "

9 Geo. I. 0.18, Bubble Att ..

7 Ooo. I. o.ai, bottomry
«Oeo. I. 0.7, appeal

inn T «• i». "laok Aot ;;

10 Geo. I. 0. 4, Papist
5Uoo. II. o.ao, pilotage
'^'o-JJ-e-S-'took-jobbing"

8 Geo. II. 0.18, copyright .
?„0»'''"-<'. 80, mortmain .

"S™-"-'- 81, apprentice ..
J O*"-"-':. 18, distress ..

« n'°' II- "• *• l""'" sessions
8Gco.II.e. 18,ceri;iorari ..

17 Ceo. II. c. 8, poor rate

0.88, poor
8 0eo.II.o.aO,rnstioo8 ..
^Oeo.II.c.aa,tarbom-s ..
» Goo. II. 0.19, apprentice
"Geo.II.c.l8,artiacers ..
» Geo. II. 0,44, justices ..
1.8.

144, 314,

clvU

MAI

.. 8M
80
.. 831
38
IM, 874
.. 804
iUK), 787
.. 188
.. 7ia
.. 739
.. 176
30, 80,384
100,403
84,697
aOS, 364
831,486
.. 480
.. 887
374, 716
.. 718
873, 889
.. 40
.. 883
.. 8Sa

.. 468
20,86a
.. 67

64

.. ass

19
883, 61S

.. fisa

.. 889

.. 478

148, 480, 650, 881

231, 838, 884, 578

.. 889

198, 687, 714

.. 688

V 348

.. 603

ae

81, 145, 287, 813
31, 666
.. 88S
.. 085
.. 883
284, 808, 600

11

dviii

TABLE OF 8TATUTK8.

25 Goo. II. c. 6, wUIs "gj

26 Goo. II. c. 14, foes at Bcssions .. ., .. ., .. (^

c. 83, clandefltino marriages ., .. .. .] lOfi

32 Geo. II. c. 28, arrest .. .. ., .. ., 109 agy

2 Goo. III. c. 19, game .. .. ,. „ ' 410

5 Geo. III. c. 14, fish ." 492

6 Geo. III. c. 19, gloves .. ,, .. ., ], " 4^0

o. 25, master and servant .. .. ., .. U34

12 Geo. III. c. 11, Boyol marru^es .. .. ., ,, 260

c 24, destroying stores . . . . . . . . 737

c. 61, gunpowder ., ,| 5^1

14 Geo. III. c. 78, fire insuirance .. .. .. .. 95 ^q

16 Geo. III. c. 80, deer 'jjyg

17 Geo. III. c. 26, annuities .. ., .. .. 105 g^a

c. 60, auction duty .. ., .. .. _. ' ^yj^

c. 56, larceny .. .. „ .. ., [ r,(jy

21 Geo. III. c. 70, East India Company . * * ai9

22 Geo. III. c. 75, Colonial Offices !! 87

c. 88, poor relief .. ,. .. ., !! 145

23 Goo. III. c. 58, stamps .. .. " 597

26 Geo. III. c. 51, post-horse duties .. .. .. 240 gcti

26 Geo. III. c. 71, slaughter-house .. .. 787

c. lOT, poor .. ,, *' yy

27 Geo. III. c. 44, ecclesiastical courts !! 161

28 Geo. III. c. 48, apprentice .. ., ., ., _ qqq
88 Geo. III. c. 18, date of Acts |, 77 740

c. 54, friendly societies .. .. ., „ ' an

84 Geo. III. c. 54, conspiracy ,. ,, „ ,, " 559

85 Geo. III. c. 101, poor .. .. ,, .. 287 3*12 420

86 Geo. III. c. 52, legacy duty .... ' "* 270
37 Geo. III. e. 128, oaths ' " S4

88 Goo. III. e. 5, land tax \\ [ 99

c. 60, land tax " [ 99

89 Geo. III. c. 84, game „ .. [[ 410

39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 99, pawnbrokers .. ,. 693 700

42 Geo. III. c. 90, militia ' rg

48 Geo. III. c. 59, bridge .. „ '.'. '* '' " 430

c. 84, benefices .. .. ,, ., __ gog

c. 99, distress .. .. ,. .. ., 236

c. 108, church .. ;^ig

c. 161, duties [[ ..542

44 Geo. III. c. 98, conveyancer "697

47 Geo. III. c. 68, coals .'. '." " 696

48 Geo. III. c. 65, house tax " [.71

c. 106, expired Acts .. .. .. ..741

0. 148, licence duties .. .. ., 300

50 Geo. Ill, c. 41, hawkers ,. ,. .. [[ "' [[ ;[22

51 Geo. III. c. 36, justices fifiT)

52 Geo. III. c. 93, taxes [[ '/ " 670

63 Geo. III. c. 127, justices .',' [\ 296

ih

TABLE OP STATUTES.

58 0eo.in.c.m,an„„itlea
0- 169, shipowner

=■« Goo. III. c^-iriu'^S™ °' "■» ^-mut/- ,

«=G„o.iii.°-i'^?;X'"'"r •• ••■ ;

0. 184, stamps

^oeo.m.::Si^^,- ■■ ■■■ ::
=>'Goo.in.°:J4««i<,^„^J :: ::

c- 50, poor

< Geo. IV. c. 84, master and «i„a„i
c* 'o, marriage

6 Geo. IV. c. 83, v»pSnt„

0. 84, felon

c. 97, artiiicers
fl n. IT, "• ^'8' «''>™ trade '

6 Qeo. IV. 0.16, bankruptcy

"• 50, false verdict
«■ 57, settlement
,„ „, "•126, pUots

7 Geo. IV. c. 46 joint-stock banks "

7* 8 Geo. c. 27, criminal statutes "
o- 28, cnminal law
c. 29, false pretences
0. 30, riot .. "=" -

■>• 71, arrest [',

an „,"•'="'. watermen
9 Geo. IV. 0.14, limitation
0- 23, bankers
c. 81, murder at sea
c. 40, lunatic prisoner
0. 60, com ..
0-61, public-house"
o. 69, game
irt «_ c. 74, criminal law
w Geo. IV. 0. 7, Bomao C#thoUo relief

oltx

PASS

616, 648, 737

98, <298
806, 606
474, 688
299, 800
301, 479

882,

' " *" •• 295

224, 656, 666
.. 786
.. 668
.. 44
.. 729

•• 84;'878, 366,667

•• 292, 819, 880, 849

178,194,884

• • 106

». M, 474;'476, 4i;6, m
84,661
.. 838

66,'69,86,-bs8,4tM?

• ■ 786

71, 863

.. 668

••,„ .. 294

«V,492,8^";^'6l?
.. 888
499, 579
• ■ 497
■ • 824

■ .„•• 687,689

■ 88, 188, 8971 448

88,106,"264,8sa,468
784

" *• 4C1A

- 2W, 863, 709, 784

.. 646

.. 88

.. ao

Ol* TABLE OF STATUTES.

10 Geo. IV. 0. 56. friondly aocieUos .. . iiu> V^'

nGeo.IV.AlWm.Iv:o.47,debt .. .. :; .. ' '|^

c. 61, beor " jjqi

o. 64, beer 800, 801, 821 ,'323, 479 480

0.68, carriers .. .. 22,28,887,419

IWm. IV. 0.18, poor °-™'P™»«"". ;; •• 258,307

0. 22, Qvidonco . " '* ^un

1 * 2 WUI. IV. 0. 22, haoknoy carriage .. " "■ Ss

"• S?" S!"l ;■ •• ^^- "^8' *'"' ^™,"492, 681, 601
0. 87, Truck Act .. .. 187,188,201

0. 41, special constables ., .. roi

c. 68, intorploador " " SS

0. Iiivi, coal ' " Aoa

2 WiU. IV. c. 88, land BuitB " " " ^^

™t„«.„ " *2i ™P«sentaUon of the people .. 63 71 ton

3 * 8 Wm. IV. c. 71^ pre«=ription .. .^ 18, lY, fiSf bL,' m

0. 100, tithes .. 97 29J

3& 4 WUl.IV.c. 16, diaiatic copyright.. " " if.

c. 27, limitations 159 297 302

0.42, limitations M, 80, 142, 802, 402, 408,' 468,' 583

c. 68, customs org

0. 74, fines and roeovcriea 160, 285, 820,"821, 443 648
c. 90, poor j„,

c. 105, dower 5, ,',^

4 & 6 Wai. IV. 0. 88, C. C. Court .. .. " 'm,

0.78, poor .. .. 88, 08, 298, 625,"689, 660, 686
c. 82, stock .. ;_ ' jjj

. 6*6 Will. rV. 0.41, bankrupt securities .. .. 872 641 M3

e. 50, highways 100, 108, 125, 189, 229*284 'm

. R± ^^UWi A A ^' *^- ^^' *»«■ S86, 601, m
0. 04, prombited degrees .. .. loi 260 261

c. 68, weights and measures .. 196* 259* 483

0. 76, municipal corporations .. 127, 186,'l65,'483,

„ an ™f^ » 677,597,660

c, 88, patent ,. ,. 389

6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 66, ScoUand, process .. 7o„

<=• "•*"*" , :: 157,8^

c. 76, newspaper stamps jjoj

c. 86, registration ., .. „ [[ '] fjffj

c. 96, assessment [] 69 '7Q qqq

• 0. 0, shipping " log' 361

7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. 0. 26, wills .. 14, 127, 156; 456, 514! 550

0. 45, parish notices 28

0. 85, injuries .. .. .'' "" 552

1 4 2 Viet. 0. 80, special constables .... 64U

c. 106, clergy ]_ 809, "609, 666, 709

"• B', uaurv
"•«.PoUoi

"*< Vict «: 55; Sta '»<'«•■•■

"• "o, ohunaeyB

* * S Viot. o" 48 ".''""''' "Usolpline
5 Viot. 0. J7 *;,°°.1»»»ionl^

"• »9. /»oto« •

0. 4/: nA^^j .

TABLB OP STATCTE8,

"• ■>". laoton

«• 79. sUmr..

- ";, HUeg

0- 79, stamp, ••

«• W, attoTOpys •■

0.86, hackney coaohe, "
'" Vict. „":i|'„^-Pb^i-» Act (,i^„

"•1«, factories ;■
0. 34. engrossiag ..
0- 29, game ^

°-S'?"'n'Poiis:: •• •

C.86 msoJvenoy..
"• «, customs

«-ioo.im.,tics ::' •• ■•

«• 106, real p^pert> " •■
lOVictcM'^" • •" ■■

«• 96, county conrta

clx!

««. "2, J46, 286, 397 Ml'
•• 29

:: ■• '27. 827:881:191

•• 272
812, 780

•• 786
280,669

•• 401
•• 806
•• ■M1.482
•• SSI
■• 818
•• 498
2firt

:: •• 22t, 644, K6

864,875
•• 181, 6S1
•. 427
•• S07
•• 184
■■„„ ■• 826
•• 70, 186, 710
•• S07
8S, 878
• ■ 211
•<02, 488, 718
•• 128

• • fi8S

• ■ 211

• . 661
807, 494
.. 786
•• 647
••806

•• J8.'2S8,275,6^

«^8";878,4lS:8*^

•• ^ 245, 836

IH 181, 712

•■ *"«

.'■ 198 ^' i^' "89
•• '98, 88S, 659, 693

99
261, 275, 8la
288,288:643

clxii TABLE OF STATUTES.

fAGE

10 & II Vict. 0. IS, ganwork 87, HSri

c. 37, harbours .. .. .. .. 17r>

c. 102, uiBolveDcy 41N

11 A la Viot. 0. 21, India in

c. 43, justices 426,603

c. 48, justicoa .. .. 292,280,898,684,638,614

c. 44, county court 27

c, 46, companies .. .. .. .. .. 428

o. 63, public health .. .. 847, 589, 694, 658, 667,

670, 671
c. 123, nuisances 241, 287, 28N

12 dk IH Vict. c. 45, sessions 79, 249, 289, 81 :i

c. 92, cruelty to animals 18,861,474

c. 96, high seas 262,557

c. 103, poor 898

c. 106, bankruptcy 66, 79, 8.57, 377, 388, 494, 667, 578

13 4 14 Viet. o. 5, mutiny 688

c. 60, trustees ,'i22

c. 61, county courts 428, 680, 730

c. 97, stamps 810

14 A 15 Vict. c. 36, house duty 118

c. 71, Church of Ireland 31H

15 4 16 Vict. c. 54, county court 780

c. 76, common law procedure .. 27, 28, 401, 404

c. 86 Chancery .. ., .. .. ., 105

16 & 17 Vict. c. 80, vexatious indictments 200

c. 84, income tax .. .. .. .. 271,544

e. 41, lodging-house .. .. .. .. • 182, 18.'t

c. 51, succession duty .. 97,102,218,271)

c. 59, cheque 201

c. 06, lunatics .. 652

c. 107, customs ,. ,. .. ., 272

c. 119, betting-houses 508,60(1

c. 128, smoke IHD

c. 187, charitable trusts .. .. .. ..587

17 & 18 Vict. o. 81, railways 46,418

c. 36, bills of sale .. 120, 121, 178, 197, 212, 370

c. 88, gaming .. .. .. .. .. .. 827

c. 60, animals .. .. .. .. .. 474

c. 90, usury 209,481

c. 102, corrupt practices .. .. 4U.',

c. 104, merchant shipping 64, 111, 181, 132, 151, IIW,

26.'), 288, 311, 418,

i-.22. .54.f, 588, 669.

653, 677, 091, 722

c. 120, merchants shipping .. ., .. .. 518

c. 125, common law procedure .. 23,24,28,85,141

18 4 19 Vict. c. 48, cinque ports 663

c. 118, public-houses .. .. 294

*!:

TABtE OP STATUTES.

lS*19Vict.o.l20,motrop„U»„„„^,„„„^

c. 121, nuisance

0- 122, metropolitan biuiding"

19 4 20 Viol „■ l^' "'"'"'"''le trusts

* "'"• °- BT. mcrcautUe law

20 Viet. e. 19 POO?' """'y"""""

iW&M Vict. 'cfspenj servitude ^
c. 48, appeal

0. 88, obscene books

e;frMSrr?s"i^^»™"

« 4 22 Vict. 1: 42*'Spr„'^™-"-'':
<!•«, Jews
c. 90, medical
c. 9S, probate

22&28Vict.::2?'S,"™"^=-«»

0. 86, property ..
on Kij Tr. X "•£?> '"eights ..
28 4 24Vict.o.K,re4hment-housW

c.^, stock jobbing ..

»• BO, judgments

c. 68, Jews
• c. 88, Jiomicide

0.126, metropolis gas"

ci2?;s°oS°''"'p'°=»'"'-

c. 180, charities

24 4 26Vict.c.-10,''Xir^r;'''-^ ••■ ,
0.21, excise .. .'; '

0- 31, Sierra Leone
c. 61, local government
0. 91, sta-nps
0. 95, criminal statutes'
c. ««,iaroeay .. 166,414
0. 97, nuscliief
0. 98, forgery ,.
0. 100, offences against the person

c. 101, S. L. B., 1881 .
0. 109, salmon fishery
0. 114, domicile
25 (. nn IT- 1 "■ "**' bankruptcy
2- ■S. 20 Vict. c. 81, highways ^ \

890

261, 840i

olxiil

■ 170. 240, 247, 822,"

826, 886, 867, 641

187, 810, 888

174, 806, 668, 685,

647,688

687

278, 816, 817,'

471, 472,

891, 892, 899
818, 819
.. 888
.. 262
844, 674, 684
.. 196
26,261
.. 819
811, 678
.. 578
.. 20

.. 894
.. 28
.. 618
.. 892
167, 168
81, 674
.. 478
.. 29
... 20
.. 262
■ . 826
.. 403
24, 471, 718
.. 687
.. 681
401, 680, 677
284, 645
.. 256
.. 847
811, 674, 667
352, 497, 579
478, 493, 499, 5NB
848, 497
•• ■ 146, 443
^, 178,267,258,
264, 265, 304, 852
486, 489, 658
105, 607, 582
184, 665, 681, 589
.. 288
51, 646
.. 066

clxiv TABLE OF STATCTBS.

21! 1 as Vict. c. 68, merchant shipping .. .. OS, 134, 181, 176

c. 68, copyright 60

c. 86, lunacy 80ri

c. 87, friendly societies .. .. .. 781

0. 89, comnonies 09, 108, 180, 302, 349, 816, 6S6, 692,

619, 633, 669, 690, 698

0. 103, metropolis management 67, 58, 386, 860, 428,

47S, 641

0. 108, assessment 669

0. 114, game 420

26 & 37 Vict. c. 29, election 37, 415, 692

c. 88, beerhouse 480

c. 85, S. Africa 2.'>S

0. 41, innkeepers 6S1

c. 113, telegraphs 146

c. 118, companies .. .. 617

c. 135, S. L. B., 1868 158, 358, 876, 431, 448, 545.

661, 727

37 & 38 Vict. c. 36, naval prize 102

c. 48, annuities 102

c. 55, metropolitan police 881,332

0. 95, fatal accidents 261

c. 101, highways 67, 666

28 4 39 Vict. c. 88, locomotive 260, 2.11. 481

0. 86, partnership .. .'>03

c. 96, revenue .. .. .. .. .. .. 811

c. 116, foreign jurisdiction 2')6

29 & 80 Vict. c. 19, Parliament 661,706

c. 90, sanitary 241,288

80 & 81 Vict. c. 6, asylum 630

c. 38, insurance 204, .'ill

c. 69, a. li. R., 1887 .. .. 808, 888, 868, 81)9, 5.12

c. 63, test abolition 20

c. 84, vaccination .. .. .. .. .. 370

c. 181, companies 129,203,619,717

c. 184, metropolis ..473

c. 142, county courts 69, 807, 40.3, 7:k1

o. 146, workshops .. .. .. .. 306

31 ft 83 Vict. c. 54, judgments extension .618

c. 71, county courts 11.3,243

c. 116, larceny 114.478

. c. 131, pharmacy 140, .I.W

c. 122, poor law 98,287,298

82 t 88 Vict. c. 14, revenue BTU

c. 19, stannaries .. .. .. .. .. 622

c. 27, beerhouse 230,6.30.784

c. 41, assessment .. .. .. .. 17,81

c. 46, debts 303

c. 51, county courts 83,113,243

c. 56, municipal elections M.')

82 A 88 Vict. 0.62, debtor.

TABLE or STATUTBB.

clxv
18, 8B, 101, 161 aw, 888, 871. 877. are"

0. 78. telegraph. ^^ **»> ""• «3, 670, 676, M^

84 & 85 Viet.

0.88. debtors ..

0. 99, habitual criminal

88*84 Viet, c:9V^S^?,,„„--
0. 14. aatnralitetion ..
c. 39, public-houras ..
c. 86. apportionment ..
0. 62, extradition
0. 71, national debt ..
0. 76, education
0. 90, foreign enlistment
"■ ™' '''«"™1 'Usabilities
c. 98, married woman

c. 97, stamps ..

0. 99, revenue ..
. 8, West Africa

w. 81, trade unions

c. 48. ecclesiastical dUapidatiins

0. 48, oaths

c. 79. lodgers' good, protection

c. w, vaccination

c. 112, habitual criminals

"• 11*. >i- L. B 1871
83 * 86 Vict. 0.19. kidnapping •

c. 88, ballot

c. 88, 8. L. B., i872

c. 66. bastards ..

0. 74. adulteration

c. 77, mines
0. 78, wild birds
c, 86. local courts
c. 92, constables
c. 98, pawnbrokers

21

104, 826, 667, 676

.. CO

.. 140

.. 878

266, 2e8

.. 895

147, 884, 692

45, 122, 420

.. 164

261, 806. 871

.. 494

.. 161

iw,22i.811.6M;JS:J^J

811, 606. 867

266, 264, 408

.. 299

.. 661

161, 662

.. 662

.. 484

.. 80, 474

146, 421, 660, 690

60, 470. e36,'687, 668,' 716

268, 800, 878

.. 269

68, 661

127, 128. 679

.. 290

.. 171

42.-.

698, 7C0

^. «M, MMwaoroKers ., -■ --"

c. 94, licensing 28, 81, 111. m. 179, 186,'i90, IW 'bT
.. OA Jii.-.j.^,„ 490,520,665,784

661

588

■• ,■■ .. 45,660

11, 161. 166, 166, 291, 292

689

•• .. 161

.. 869
272

a . „n T,. . °- **' "lyaptdations
6 4 87 Vict. c. 88, vagraate ..
c. 60, ex^adition
c. 66, judicature
c. 71, salmon fisher;
0. 76, railways
0. 86, shipping
c. 88, slave trade

I ■

LilJt.

okvi . TABLE Oir STATUTES.

86 * 87 Vict. 0. 91, S. L. B., 1878 410. SOS 'ml

87 * 38 Vlot. c. 88, StealU Settlomonti .. 40H

0. 49, licenalog .. ' ., 323, Sii

0. 67, limitation 802, 871, 873, 4.'i8

0. 63, infants 876,892

c. 68, ulioiton 2.';4

c 8/5, public wonliip oai 0j8

oa » .» ,r. . "• S"' ^-."i- "■• 1*^^ 808,866,689,718

as A 89 Vict. c. 26, public BtorcB protection .. .. jajj

c. 86, arti74uiB' dweUings vHi

c. 60, count; courts 291,292,677

c. 61, Pacific Island! 350

c. 64, justices .. .. .. 21

c. 66, public liealtli .. 182, 168, 170, 186, 186, 241, <MH
810, 826, 888, 342, 847, 848, 368,'
864, 366, 366, 444, 496, J4.'i, SS4,
689, 694, 666, 667, 668, 667, 671

c. 60, friendly society j3d

c, 68, adulteration 68,186,491,661

c. 66, 8. L. E., 1875 ..687

c. 76, ecclesiastio^ .. 021

c. 77, judicature 28, 49, 166, 174, 289, 819, 891, 548

c. 79, solicitor 402

c. 86, conspiracy .. 16, 86, 168, 176, 194, 8.S4,

™ , 876, 480, Bur,

c. 90, employers and worJouen sDO

c. 94, defilement ., .. .. ynj

89 4 40 Vict. c. 22, trades union ,[ 299

c. 29, wild birds 290

c. 86, customs 272,584,738

c, 46, mdustrial societies 731

c. 61, parish ^^ ggp

c. 79, education 393^ 371

c. 80, mercliant sbippins fi?' 197

41 & 42 Vict. c. 10, customs.. . .. .. .. . ' i»4

c. 16, factories 806, 494

c. 17, adulteration .. .. ., ., 90

c. 31, bills of sale .. 16,31,120,180,185,173,210,

211, 22i;, 318
c. 49, weights and measures .. .. 196, 259, 41*1

c. 54, debtors .. .. ., .. ,. ^_ ;[7i

c. 78, piracy " " 2fk-j

c. 77, highways 170 545

42 4 43 Vict. c. 11, bsil<8 " ;; .. ' im

c. 80, adulteration .. ' r<H

c. 49, summary jurisdiction .. 15, 101, 252, 820. .110,
841, 344, 52.1, 11H4

c. 59, civil procedure . iu,'i 459

48 4 44 Vict c. 9, time „ ,[ ,,' m

c. 19, taxc!; ,. .. ,. _ __ ._ 230

TABLE OF STATUTES.

it

«*«Vloto.ao.„vm„,
«• M, wild blrd«

0. 41, conveyancing
0. 08, »nny

0. ro, civil procidure .V

;-??'?™»p»i»riiboiB ::

dxvii

PAOK

.. 801
.. !igo

•■ iao,'228, 895, 800
898, 894

661

892, 898
136, 668
.. fil9
863,868,740
14, 147
.. 118

-, . .. 17, 28, 81

°-™'™?™y«i«ing :; •• •• 181

"•<«,b.ii»„,,.,e .. ii:ie.u,m:m.mZ

"8, 198,210,'21I,2i3,Vl8
c. «.. mnnioipal con»™tion, ,27, 186%ri'.W
0. 61, bills of exohaneo "*'• '"^' «*>• 62^, 660

0. 76. n^rried wo»an% p„perty :; «,, m^f^fJ

168, 285, 818,' 887*
402, 445, S6S

2i);34,87,250,"401,4ri8,?^
27, 415, 429, 470,

4e4 47Vict.c.47,.n»Ui„tesU«io,
e- 49, oivil procedure .,
°- "• """TDpt practices
"• 53, bankruptcy

». 86, education
0.S7, patents ..

«*«vic..c°:S;b'ffif^Si-<^ ••
o:46,"?,lT'"!:''»"f "-op-pie

o-61, customs .,

c. 81, Secretary for ScoUand"
"• 69, criminal law

« * 60 Vict e°' -n ' .'";"«""^' dwellings ;;

o*Mvicte^if'c;trr'™''^«'-'

c. M, merchandise marks "

c. 29, margarine

0. 56, sheriffs ..

«• 68, coal mines

■=• 69, H. L. R., 1887 ;

81, 101, 114 158 iflfl ]o7

313, 214, 258, 267, 877 S

890,485,486;477;66i;Z'

495

886, 579, 593

.. 129

" 164

8a, 289, 840, 714

785

485, 486
.. 71
.. 180
.. 479
.. 68
366, 804

•• 140

880, 887, 666

.. 272

191, 195

474

109, lB7,188;'a62,4V2,478
.. 704
.. 805

clxviii XABLB 0, BTATirraa.

M 4 SI Viot. 1 . 6a, luilirqptoy 'A"

c. 21. dirtnw .. v. v. "180 Ms' In

e.»a,lorgm ■• ">

e. 87, Unaiord and tount .. f™

0. 41, local goTtrninent " " i^

C.M, mortmain .. 314, 898,' 884, 448, 873

0.48, county court. ..87,38,68,180,388,388, Ml SM
818, 848. 411, 498, S18,' 687.'
c.»e.bi.hop .. .. »«.«».««.«7,680.730

0. »7, S.L.11,1888 .. .. ;; •• ais S2

M*«8Vict.::7^"ru?^.'^r •• •• " 2B

r4ii;7^^"^-T"'" " --..i'?

c. 48, arUtrotion 4g joq goi 409 liJ

0. 68, interpretation .. 68, 77, 110,'883,'489,'aoi 'eiS

«.4«V,et.c«.nn«, .. .^ "^^ 'V^ll^lt:^

0. 31, inland revenue noi

c. 39, intertacy " " ?^

0.84, boiler. *Jf

0. 87, foreign jurirfiotion .. '' " n'l

c 89, partner.hip .... " " tra

o.44,mdicatnre .. .. ?^

c. 61, S. L. B., 1890 .. .. ■• ■• J}!

0. 68, banimiptoy .. .. " " fl,

0. 69, public health .. .. " Von 911

0. 68, eompanle. .. .. " "*',!ll

c. 70, houidng of working ola«M. .. .'. " j^

64 4 66Vict.e:8"tiShe°^P':'.' "^^ ^' SS

0.86, bill, of «ae ". .'. •• ,„'on

c. 88, .tamp duties „ .. " m

0. 89, stamps . . 128, 304, 336, 509| Oil, 668, 700

0. 78, mortmam 215

68 4 66 Vict 0.9, gaming 1 99," 886,' 800 69.1

0. 10, short title. _ ' ' yj

c. 18, conveyancing .. ,. ., " *' ggjj
c. 19, statute law revision, 1892 .. " " 7117
c 83, clergy discipline .. .. ;; 432 489

c. 63, shop hours ... loi

68 4 07 Vict. c. 89, industrial societies " " Bon 711

c.64,8.L.B.,1898 .. .. i." ■204, S M2

0. 01, public authonties protection .. 38, 104, 108, 109,

184, 284, 308, 308, 359,

860, 413, 010, OtK>

TABLE OF STATCTBS.

H

eUis

«• H wild bW. ••
"• **• "•rohinta flipping

STB
.. 87
.. 9S0
• . 87

Ma SS' 5!2' *"• M8
wo, »e9, 868, 677, 884

Ml. 720, 732

M*81Victo87 wi''L'"^^°°'"'*y"

«««.tMj{'-J*;, ■■ :: ::

«• ^sapreme court "

1 Ed. VII n in r^ """K" ..
"•aa, faotorio.

»Ed.VII.„.4^^Ut .. .. gg_^~

'^^•vii.c;n:St^t"^'""' •• " :: :: Sg

0. 16, justices ■■ •■ •■ ■■ iS

V^""^- ■'■ ;■ •• •■ ■• M?

0. 86, copyright .. •• .. .. 348

.. (MO

78
.■. 707
",„. '*8. «>7
IW, 84S, 846
345,808
.. 188
.. 788
■ ■ 488
.. 147
.. 833
• . 474
.. S8
.. 821
490, 886
807, 410, 403
.. 187
.. 640

.. ais

.. 3S1

dxx TADLK or 8TATUTK8.

t Ed. VII. 0. ao, intoxinting liqoon 131

c. 47, timde diiputM 70.1

0. 48, nuratwDt ihlpplng 370, 6M , SM. 7%, 722

0. A8, warknMn'i compeniaUon ., K, Mi, Mil

7 Ed. VII. c. », twrltorUI lonwi 017

0. 17, nrolwUoD of oflonden, 1807 »'is

c IB, bifuita %.<

0. 91, tdultgraUon tU

c.M, limited iwrtnanhin SOU

c.W.patanta SSS, OW, Mil

c. 81, vuclnation 1171

I!. 48, ednution WIN

c. 47, inurUgM Ml

c. clxxl, watar SOa

8 Ed. VII. 0. 11, wild biidi 360

0. IS, ooBts in orUninol i»H» 108, SM, 04S

c. 38, agrioultiml holdinRi 488,716

c.4«,liioMt 106

0. 48, DMt office 12B

0. 40, 8. L. B., ISOH 829

0. Sa, dittreu ieS,6S3

c.SS, poiiont 140, m

0. 67, obUdnn IHH

c. 88, oompanieii (cotuoUdaUan) 48, 60, 108, 107, 1%.

180, 147, 168, 302, 20»,

810, 438, 440, SSS, S61,

693, 818, 633, e6«,

680, 691, 688, 717

0 Ed. VII. 0. 84, eleotrio Ughting 128

0. 44, hoaxing 140

10 Ed. VII. 0. 8, Bnuioa 384, S4S, 700

10 Ed. VII. ft I Oeo. V. o. 34, Uoeniing (conioUdatloD) 38, 103, 111,

131, 138,147, '7 J, 186,187,

190, 193, 333, 381, 382, 284,

843, 861, 896, 490, .ViO,

66S, 636, 784

0. 8S, finanee 670

1 ft 3 Oeo. V. 0. 37, aninudi 861, 474

c. 88, money lenden 8^1

0. 46, oopviight .. 60, 181, 186, 146, 375, 390. 887,

480, 491, 6S6, 661, 716

3 ft 8 Oeo. V. 0. 30, criminal law ^^

c. 81, pUotaga 16, 19, 416, S17, 522, 619

Sft40eo.V. c. 37, forgei7 146, 843, 4«6

c. 38, mental deficiency 6S8

c. 84, bankruptcy 5"

o. 87, national insurance ^^

4 ft 5 Geo. V. o. 17, aliens 366,267,268

c 47, deeds of arrangement .. .. .. 388, 40.?

c. 58, orimimd iustioe admlniatcation .. 86, 664

'****«V.».»,i»ai„pfc,y

TADUE or STATDTtS.

M. 86, 70, TO. 100,

•w, 107, aoa, am,

W», MT, 87
JS A A n « *■ ". coMtoblo. *"^ "*- '7».

«t7S"v-c°'i'i'«°""""'"''»"''i'^ :■' •• ■

' ""'• '• «• l'», •unuiurtuuo

«• «, Jimo, IreUnd "

o.«\l««,n, ii^„- ^^

7 * 8 0«. V. 0. as. court, (omergoooy powcn.
0. «, reproMDliiUon ol pioiJo '

dsii

an, 338
m sao;

1*^4,(1.,

■ filH
-"- »,-,u

TO.',

8.1. I
Ids M4, fi77

, '*^'', r^ (

6M8
' ■', i.tO
i .d, J.'

■*no, V. :

M

INTJ

A STATI

the fnnda

all others

be expoui

that mad

statute ai

Mguous n

these wort

the words

the intenti

of all inter

what inten

impliedly,

(a) 4 Inst a
(') Income 3

PM3;61L.J.

(1877), 2 App.

Tordyct v. Brid,

[1902]2Ir.B.'

ON THE

INTEEPRETATION Of STATUTES.

4!

CHAPTEB I.

SECTION I.— INTRODUCTORY.

te words themselves Lslh "^""^ '"'''''

— ly.b..e,:rer;;sm•
'"). a App. Cas. 743. iJtmZtTTT": ^'""^
'dye V. Sr,ds„ (1847) i h t n , ^' ®- "^ ' '* «'»o

r.s.

I

i j

2 INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

necessary for determining whether the particular
case or state of facts presented to the interpreter
falls within it. When the intention is expressed,
the task is one of yerbal oonstraotion only ; bat
when the statute expresses no intention on a
question to which it gives rise, and yet some
intention must necessarily be imputed to the
Legislature regarding it, the intSxpreter has to
determine it by inference grounded on certain
legal principles. The Act (a), for instance, which
imposes a penalty, recoverable summarily, on
every tradesman, labourer and other person who
carries on his worldly calling on a Sunday,
would give rise to a question of the former kind,
when it had to be determined whether the class
of persons to which the accused belonged was
comprised in the prohibition. But two other
questions arise out of the prohibition : is the
offender indictable as well as punishable sam-
marily ? and, is the validity of a contract entered
into in contravention of the Act affected by it ?
On these corollaries or necessary inferences from
its enactment, the Legislature, though silent,
must nevertheless be held to have entertained
some intention, and the interpreter is bound to
determine what it was.

And in such case the interpretation must be
that which best accords with the public benefit,
(«) Sunday Observance .\ct, 1677 (29 Oar., 11 Ch. 7).

^SSMmSBK^'

UTEBAL CONSTBUCTION 3

m gathenng the intention on those incidental

ZlTtot"' ^"^ "^^^^^''*"^« ^^ ~^^^^^^^^^
presumed to have entertained an opinion bnf o«

which it has not expressed any ? ^ ' "* ""

SECTION II.-LITERAL C0N8TKUCTION

tiof f/rf! Tt "'°"' «l«'"«'»*«'y rule of construc-
taon IS. that It IS to be assumed that the words

^d othtr ""'T^ '' *'^^ ^"^« -q--d one.
and, otherwise, m their ordinary meaning- and
J-ondly, that the phrases and^sentences'are to
be cons rued according to the rules of gram^al

depart, where the language admits of no other
— g; nor. where it is susceptible of another
meamng, unless adequate grounds are Tund
ther in the history or cause of the enactment
" '° *^^ °'«'*«^* °' ^ the consequences which

(-) Br^Uaufk V. Clarke (1883). 62 L. J. Q. B. 505 (H. L.,.

4 INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTBS.

would result from the literal interpretation, for
ooncluding that that interpretation does not give
the real intention of the Legislature (a). If there
is nothing to modify, nothing to alter, nothing to
qualify, the language which the statute contains,
it must be construed in the ordinary and natural
meaning of the words and sentences (b).
The great fundamental principle is : —

" In construing Wills, and indeed. Statutes
and all Written Instruments, the grammatical
and ordinary sense of the words is to be
adhered to, unless that would lead to absurdity,
or some repugnancy or inconsistency with
the rest of the instrument; in which case
the grammatical and ordinary sense of the
words may be modified so as to avoid that

(a) Bao. Ab. Statnte (I.) 2 ; Becke v. Smith (1836), 2 M. & W.
191, p. 195; 46 B. B. 567 ; Cot v. Males (1890), 15 App. Cas.
606 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 89 ; McDougal v. Paterson, 21 L. J. C. P. 27 ;
MaOan T. JToy (1844), 13 M. & W. 511 ; 67 B. B. 707 ; per
Maule J., Jeffery v. Boo$ef (1864), 4 H. L. Gas. 815 ; B. v. JBi«t»,
59 B. B. 134, jMT Lord Brougham ; A.-G. v. Weitmimter
Ckamben Amoe. (1876), 45 L. J Ex, 886, per Jessel MB. ;
(Ml V. Auftin (1872), 41 L. J. 0. i" 153 ; B. v. Castro (1874),
43 L, J. Q. B. 105; Bradtaugh v. C/u ke (1883), 52 L, J. Q. B.
505, per Lord Fitzgerald ; Hornsey v. Monarch Bldg. Socy.,
24 Q. B. D, 5, per Lord Esher M.B. ; Traeis v. VtUey (1893),
63 L. J. M. 0. 48.

(6) St. John, Bamptlead v. CoUm (1886), 12 App. Cas. G,per
Lord HaUbory L.C.

tM^MMM&S^MM

LiTERAi, conmavcnm. 5

abenrd%, repugnancy, or inoonsistenoy, but
no farther "(a). ; ''

In repeating this canon in Abbott v. Middleton(b),
Lord Wensleydale said : " This rule was in sub-
stance laid down by Mr. Justice Burton in War.
burtons. Loveland{c). It had previously been
described by Lord EUenborough, in Doe y
Jessep{d), as 'a rule of common sense as strong
as can be.' It had been stated by Lord Cranworth
(when Chancellor) as 'a Cardinal Rule' from
which, if we departed, we should launch into a sea
of difficulties not easy to fathom (o) ; and as the
flSfoWen 3&Ute when applied to Acts of Parliament,
by Jervis C.J., in Mattis<m v. Sart " (/), who there
states " we ought ... to give to an Act of Parha-
ment the plain, fair, literal meaning of its words,
where we do not see from its scope that such
meaning would be inconsistent, or would lead to
manifold injustice."
When the language is not only plain but admits
(«) Per Lord Wensleydale, Grey v. Pear«m. 6 H. L. Gas. 106 •

S' 1^-*PP- °*^- "' P- ^' '""' "»'« ««P««iaUy Shades v. Shode.
(1882), 7 App. Oaa. (P. C.) 192, at p. 205

(h) (1858), 7 H. L. Cas. 114, 115 ; 28 L. J. Ch. 114
(c) 1 Huds. & Bro. 648.
{d) 12 Bast, 293.

(e) Gmdry v. Pinniger (1862), 1 De G. M. & G 502-
!1 L. J. Ch. 405.
(/) (1864), 23 L. J. 0. P 108, at p. 114; 14 C. B. 385.

m^mMm^^^

I^fJ

o INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

of but one meaning, the task of interpretation can
hardly be said to arise. It is not allowable, says
Vattel, to interpret what has no need of interpreta-
tion (a). Absoluta sententia expositore non indiget (6).
Such language best declares, without more, the
intention of the lawgiver, and is decisive of it (p).
The Legislature must be intended to mean what
it has plainly expressed, and consequently there is
no room for construction (d). It matters not, in
such a case, what the consequences may be,
Where, by the use of clear and unequivocal
language capable of only one meaning, anything
is enacted by the Legislature, it must be enforced,
even though it be absurd or mischievous (c).

(a) Law of N., b. 3, s. 263.

(b) 2 Inst. 633.

(c) Per BuUer J., B. v. Hodwtt, 1 T. B. 96 ; Siutex Peerage
(1844), 11 01. 4 P. 143; U. 8. v. Hartmtt, 6 Wallace, 395;
V. 8. V. Wiltberger, 6 Wheat. 95.

(d) Per Parka J., B. v. Banlmn/, 1 A. & B. 142 ; per Cur ,
Fuher v. Blight, 2 Cianoh, 399.

(e) Per Lord Eshar M.B., B. v. Cf(y 0/ Londtm Court, [1892]
1 Q. B. 273, disBenting from the rule laid down by Jessel MB.
in The Alina, 5 Ex. D. 227; per Lord Hersohel, Mrrse,/
Docks <tc. Board v. Turner, [1893] A. 0., at p. 477 ; ,.er
Lord Campbell, JB. v. Skeen, 28 L. J. M. C. 94 ; per JeiTis C.I.,
AbUy V. Dale, 21 L. J. 0. P. 104 ; per Pollock C.B., Uiller v.
Salomotu, 21 L. J. Ex. 197 ; per Lord Brougham, Brilish Farmers
dc. Co., In re (1878), 48 L. J. Ch. 56 ; affirmed tub. nom. Buriin-
ihaiw V. NicolU (1878), 3 A. C. 1004 ; Crawford v. Spooncr, 0
Moo. P. 0. 9. See Sneed v. ComiiKmaealth, 6 Dana, 339 (Kentucky).

UTJJBAL CO»8TBUCTI0N. 7

The onderlying principle being that the meaning
and intention of a statute must be ooUected from
the plain and unambiguous expressions used
therein rather than from any notions which may
be entertained by the Court as to what is just or

n^S!^?''*.^- " '^^ ^•"••^^ g° ^^y'^'d what was
^bably the intention, effect must nevertheless
be given to them (b). They cannot be construed,
contrary to their meaning, as embracing or
excluding oases merely because no good reason
appears why they should be excluded or em-
braeed(c). However unjust, arbitrary or incon-
vement the meaning conveyed may be, it must
receive its full effect (d). When once the meaning
IS plain. It is not the province of a Court to scan
Its wisdom or its poUcy(.). Its duty is not to

P-Sef^ B.1r" "'''^'' *"• * ''■ '''■ '^''"''•^ '■■ "'

(i) Notley v. Buck (1828), 8 B. & C. 164

(c) Pik V. Boare (1763), 2 Eden, 184, j,er Lord Northi>gton •

[1892]2Q.B.358,C.A.; ai.dp«rCur..Z)en. v. fi«V (1836) 10
Peters, 524; an American case.

Jd) Ornamental Wo^work Co. v. Bromi, 2 H. & C 03 per
Martin B. and BranaweU B. ; Mireho^^ v. Bennell. 1 CI 1= p
546, ;„T Parke J. ; S. v. Poor Lam Cummimoner«, 6 A & B 7
£.#« V. Torke, 63 E. E. 337, ^.r Erakine J.; Mm, v O W B
Co, 41 L. J. Q. B. 104. ■ "■■ «.

(e) Per Lord Ellenborough, B. v. ITataon, 7 East 214 and
B. V, Staffordshire. 12 Bast, 572; B. v. Hod^ett, IT .;, 100 ,,er
tord Mansfield ; B. v. fFareesterMre. 3 P. & D. 465 j, v Lord

8 INTKBPnETATION OF STATUTES.

mako the law reasonable, bat to expound it as
it fr ands, according to the real sense of the
words (a).

Apparently, however, the statutory crystallisa-
tion of an existing common law liability will not,
in the absen<ii of express words to that effect,
create a new . ■ ' extended application of that
obligation (A). '• ud where there are general
words in a li.!jr Act capable of reasonable and
sensible application without extending them to
subjects specially dealt with by earlier legisla-
tion it is not to be held that such earlier and
special legislation is either indirectly repealed,
altered or derogated from merely by force of such
general words, without any indication of a par-
ticular intention to do so (c). Moreover, although
the effect of repealing a statute is to obliterate it
as completely as if it had never been passed this
rule must be taken with the qualification that it
does not deprive persons of vested rights acquired

Denman ; per BramwoU B., Archer v. Jamu, 2 B. i S. 61 ;
Miller v. Salomotu.Hl h. J. Ex. 197, ;wr Pollock C.B. ; Exji.
Atluater. 5 Oh. D. 30, per .James L.J. Followed in Payne
Exp. Cross, In re (1879), 11 Ch. D. 539, note, p. 552.

(a) Biffin V. Yorle, 63 B. R. 337, j)«r CreasweU J. See ex. gr.
PlasUren Co. t. ParUh Clerks Co., 20 L. J. Ex. 362; Dennis v.
ToteU (1872), 42 L. J. M. 0. 33; " The Merle " (1874), 31 L. T.
447.

{b) Siver Wear Commissioners v. Adanuon (1877), 2 A. C. 743.

(e) Seward v. Vera Crux (1884), 10 A. C. 59, at p. 68.

UTBBAL OOWSTRUCTION. g

Btatate unless th« ili \- ^ «'^'«» *o a

that it XSd t T ""^ *^« ^^S^'^''*"^
iB plain and^a^K- ° *'°"'*^"^ " «P"«8ed

-^oh were peSf^ TawfutTr' ^ ""*'
Bubsequently made unk™?,!f I ^° '^""^ "«
who have to SLeMrf , "^ " '***"*'■ "'"'^
to itW. And thT . ""^ '^°'* 8^^« «ffeot

when tLytleeWor °"°^ *° ^° *^" ^-^'^
that the lanlai ^ conjectural gi-ounds only)

what was he'^eTinZ"* Z"*''""^ -P'-
when it passedthe A. °V^' legislature

intention tf tit spect * " T? '"'"^ ''«» i*"
''' '*• "It X have ber "^ ''''" P'°P°««^
framers of the Act^^L ^ ? *"''"'«^* '"^ the
"but we n.us t^nltrTIl'"''\^-' ^ °"« '"««'
- Obvious. ean-t'^-Tor/eeJ.^^^^^^^

s*^-. ^.i,. (merse w'k ^:/'"'*'"'•»•■'^•.•
lK.B.259. "'^ ^- ^- 66, C. A.; |;i9i7j

10

INTXXPBITATION OF tTATVTn.

Lord Tenterden, in another («), "m»y. in thi.
particular case operate to defeat the object of the
Act ; but it is better to abide by this ooniequenoe
than to put upon it a construction not warranted
by the words of the Act, in order to give effect to
what we may suppose to have been the intention
of the Legislature." " I cannot doubt," says Lord
Campbell, in another (A), "what the intention of
tbe Legislature WPS ; but that intention has not
been carried into effect by the language used. .
It IS far better that we should abide by the words
of a statute, than seek to reform it according to
ttie supposed intention." " The Act," says Lord
Abmger, in another (c), "has practicaUy had a
very pernicious effect not at all contemplated; but
we cannot construe it according to that result."

In short, when the words admit of but one
meaning, a Court is not at Uberty to speculate on
the intention of the Legislature, and to construe
them according to its own notions of what ought
to have been enacted (rf). Nothing could be more
dangerous than to make such considerations the

(a) S. V. Sarhan, S B. & 0. 99 ; ue aleo per Bayley J., B v
Slokt Damerel, 7 B. & C. 569.

(i) Cm V, Laurenee 39 L. J. Q. B. 140.

(«) A..G. V. Lockwoo,!. S M. 4 W. 395; Loelumd v. A.-C, 10
M. & W. 464. Per Lora Denman, B. v. Mabe (1836), 3 A. & B
531.

(d) Per Our., Tork i N. Midland By. Co. v. B.. 22 L. J. Q. B.
325, and camp. The Queen v. Frenck (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 507.

"TWAl OOWmuOTlOK.

•wibiguous'in UMlf^Tn'^ enaotment that i. m.
«»> account of «"h" J° ";""* '^°"' ««e n.ean^
•*™e the Act. bnttoX '/ > *^'''' "°* *°^
?' the interpreter ia nott ^"^^ ^"* *'"' ^'"^eB"
». to expound It Th*P'°'' *'"'''*«*"*«.■ i'

'»««''(*); A., what triof H ''*'*''^'^«°'««
"•"wtC.). To give a eL.^ . "" '""^ *'"'t it
or different fromf^thatVwc, .^ " r'"'"^ *°'

freq»en«yappLTJ^:rar/° '"'^°"»' '* « ««>

"■•i the Umits of Us !!!r r'*'^"''"'^''cope
"tanoe, it was r«L ! .^P^cat'on. Thus, for i^

of limitation which enlc'teVth "* ''' ^**'"*««
-* ^ brought after T ;'«« „" r'""^ ''^'>^'

(») W.gr»m, int ^ ^ /"-O- 375.
bum CJ B J ' °'" ed., 1914 n ■? .

^"gue. V. J/,tt.,..i, 10 E° ,16 '""• "^"' ^'^«~k 0. B..

MICIOCOrr lltSCHUTION TEST CHAIIT

(ANSI ond ISO TEST CH4BT No. 2)

1.0 [fl^ 1^

f^la 12.2

I.I

111.25

i

Li 12.0

"^ III

1.8

m Lu ii6

A APPLIED IM/!!3E Im

Hochule:, Ne, Yo,k -4609 USA
(716) «82 - 0300 - Phone
(716) 28B-5989 -Fa.

12

INTEEPBETATION OF STATDTBS.

iHliil^

from the time when the canse of action acorned,
barred actions brought after the time bo limited,
though the cause of action was not discovered or,
practically, discoverable by the injured party at
the date of accrual, or was even fraudulently con-
cealed from the wrong-doer until the time limited
by the Act had expired {a). The hardship of such
decisions was obvious, but the language admitted
of no other construction. So, if an Act provides
that convictions shall be made within a certain
period after the commission of the offence, a con-
viction made after the lapse of that period would
be bad, although the prosecution had been begun
within the time limited, and the c>'se had been
adjourned to a day beyond it, with the consent, el-
even at the instance, of the defendant (i). So,

(a) Short v. McCarthy, 22 E. E. 503 ; Brmen V. Howard, 2 Brod.
& B. 73 ; Cohin v. Buckle, 58 E. E. 834 ; Imperial Gat Co. v.
London Gas Co., 23 L. J. Ex. 303 ; Bonomi y. Backhouse (1856),
27 L. J. Q. B. 378; Smith V. Fox, 77 E. R 152; rioletl v.
Sympton, 27 L. J. Q. B. 138 ; Banter v. Gibbons, 26 L. J. Ex. 1 ;
Darley Main Colliery Co. v. Mitchell (1885, 1886), 55 L. J. Q. B.
529. As to concealed fraud, see Balli Coal Co. v. Osborne (1899),
68 L. J. P. C. 49; Oelkers v. JB«i», [1914] 2 K. B. 139; Gibbs v.
Guild, 51 L. J. Q. B. 313 ; Willis v. Earl Howe, 62 L. J. Ch. 690 ;
and Thome v. Beard, 64 L. J. Ch. 652. See also Kirk v. Todd,
52 L. J. Ch. 224. As to the effect upon the contracts of an alien
enemy, see Halsey v. Lowen/eld, [1916] 2 K. B. 707, C. A.
Comp. Chap. IX, Sec. II.

(6) B. V. Bellamy, 1 B. & C. 500; B. v. Tolky, 3 East, 467;
Pellcw V. Wonford, 9 B. & C. 134 ; Farrell v. Tomlinson, 6 Bio.

LITERAL CONSTRUCTIOSf.

13

when an Act gave to persons aggrieved by an
order of justices a certain period, after the making
of the order, for appealing to the Quarter Sessions,
it has been held that the time ran from the day
on which the order was verbally pronounced, not
from the day of its service on the aggrieved
person (a). Even when the order was made be-
hind his back, as in the case of stopping up a
road, the time ran from the same date, and not
from the day on which he got notice of it (ft),
notwithstanding the manifest hardship and in-
justice resulting from such an enactment (c).

And as a general proposition of law the rule laid
down by Lord Halsbury in Leader v. Duffey for the
construction of wills apphes d fortiori to the con-
struction of statutes, consequently "whatever
the instrument, it must receive a construction
according to the plain meaning of the words and
sentences therein contained . . . and it is arguing in
a vicious circle to begin by assuming an intention
apart from the language of the instrument itp'.Ii,

P. C. 438; Adam v. BHM, 2 A. & E. 389; JJ. v. JttomwanW,
27 L. J. M. C. 278.

(a) B. V. DcrhytUre, 7 Q. B. 193 ; B. v. BmtingioMliire (1850),
19 L. J. M. C. 127 ; Exp. Johnton, 32 L. J. M. C. 193 ; B. v.
Barnet, 45 L. J. M. C. 105 ; Ntitter v. Uoorhome (1904), 68 J. P.
134. Comp. B. V. Shrewsbury, 22 L. J. M. C. 98.

(b) B. V. Slaffordthire, 3 East, 151.

(c) Per Lord EUenborough, Id. 163.

I J

14

mTEBPRETATIOV OP STATUTES.

and, having made that fallacious assumption, to
bend the language in favour of the assumption so
made "(a).

Where an Act ordained that no converted
Papist should be deemed a Protestant unless he
received the sacrament, took the abjuration oath,
and filed certain certificates within 6 months from
his declaring himself a Protestant, a comphance
one day after that period was held too late (h).
The Welsh Sunday Closing Act, 1881, being
fixed to come into operation on the day "next
appointed" for the annual licensing meeting, was
by a literal construction postponed for a year later
than was, in all probability, intended ; but the
Court refused to avert this result by any departure
from the primary meaning of the words (c). The
Wills Act, 1837 {d), which requires, s. 9, a testa-
tor to sign his will " in the presence " of two
witnesses, has been construed as meaning the
actual visual presence («). And prior to the passing

(a) Leader v. Duffei/ (1888), 13 A. C. 294, at p. 301. See also
Scale v. BaaUiu, [1892] A. 0. 342.

(b) Farrell v. Tomlineon, 5 Bro. P. C. 438. See alBO Muluiiu-
mud V. Bareilly, L. E. 1 Ind. App. 1G7.

(c) Skhardt v. McBride (1881), 51 L. J. M. C. 15.

(d) 7 Will. IV., 1 Vict. 0. 26.

(e) 1 Viot. 0. 26, e. 9. Brown v. Skirrnw, 71 L. J. P. D. & A.
19. As to the effect of foreign domicile on 3. 9, see Simpaon,
In re, [1916] 1 Ch. 502. See also Wilhimon'a SeUlement,
In re, ri917] 1 Ch. 620. As to nuncupative wills in case of

LITERAL CONSTRUCTION. 15

Of 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 17, which repealed 5
ElJz. 0. 4, 8. 25, it was held that if an Act of
ParUament provided 'hat no deec'. of apprentice-
ship should be valid unless signed and sealed by
justices of the peace, the omission of the seal would
be fatal to the validity of the instrument (a). So,
if an Act authorises orders of commitment "in
open Court," an order not in the Court, but signed
m another part of the building also open to the
pubhc, would be invalid (A), and generally it is
provided by s. 21 (1) of the Summary Jurisdic-
tion Act, 1879, that any Act (other than a purely
mimstenal act, such as the signing of summons,
&o.) must be heard, tried, determined or adjudged
m open Court. The BiUs of Sale Act, 1878
requiring an affidavit of the due attestation as well
as of the execution of the deed, the omission in the
former to mention the attestation was held fatal,
although the attestation clause of the deed asserted
it (c). It would not be open to the interpreter, in

'rrrgnVp'^" '^""' " '^^''' '" ''''*" ^'"^"'^' '" '*' """"

(a) S. V. Stoke Damerel, 7 B. & 0. 563. See also JB. v. MeUim-
htm, 2 Bott. 363 ; R. v. Margram, 5 T. E. 153 ; B.v St Peter: 1

2^3 l^l'ulV' ^'' ^''"'''' '" ^- * ^- '^ ' ^- '■ *'"^-**'«.

(b) Debtors Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Viot. c. 62), s. 5; Kenyan v
Eattwood, 57 L. J. Q. B. 455.

(c) Ford V. Kettle, 51 L. .1. Q. B. 558. The necessity for
attestation by a solicitor is avoided by s. 10 of 45 & 46 Viot.

16

INTEBPBETATION OF STATtTTEB.

such cases, to shut his eyes to tbs formalities
required, because he deemed them unimportant, or
because a hardship or failure of justice might
result, in the particular case before him, from a
neglect of any of them.

An Act which enacted that a pilot was to deliver
up his licence to the pilotage authorities " when-
ever required to do so," would call for implicit
obedience to the letter, however arbitrarily the
power which it conferred might be misused, and
although the withdrawal of the licence would in
effect amount to a dismissal of the pilot from his
employment (a). The Prescription Act, 1832,
making easements " indefeasible " which were
enjoyed for a number of years " next before some
suit or action wherein the claim or matter " was
brought in question, was held to leave the title to
the easements inchoate only, no matter how long
they had been uninterruptedly enjoyed, until a

c. 43. Attestations may now be made " by one or more credible
witness or witnesses not being a party or parties thereto." As
to the Act of 1882 (45 & 46 Viet. c. 43), s. 9 ; Thomas v. Kelly
(1888), 13 App. Cas., per Lord Halsbury, p. 511. See also
Partont v. Brand, 59 L. J. Q. B. 189 ; Comp. Bird v. Daveg, 60
L. J. Q. B. 8. See other illustrations in Be Nem Eberhardt Co.,
59 L. J. Ch. 73; Sims v. Trollope (1897), 66 L. J. Q. B. 11;
Litter V. Hickling, [1916] 2 K. B. 302.

(o) Henry v. Nemcaslle Trinity House (1858), 27 L. J. M. C. 57.
Sec. 20 (2) of 2 & 3 Geo. V. o. 31,. limits the power of the
Pilotage Authority in this matter to certain specified cases.

MTEBAL OONSTRUOTION. I7

suit or aotion^waa brought, when the title ripened
into a oomplete nght (a). Prior to the passing of

T. \t f- '• ^°' '■ ^ ^'^^'^^ altered the
law), the earlier Act which provided that if hi
oocapaer assessed to a rate coased to occupy before

should enter his successor in the rate book and

the outgoer should not be liable for more than his

due proportion, did not relieve such outgoer fro^

the rest of the rate, when the premises rer^a^L^^

unoccupied after his removal (6) ^"^"^

An enactment that a magistrate might on the

pplicatmn of the mother of a bastard' sum Jo,

Its putative father for its maintenance, withT 12

n.onths from its birth, would not luttoZ.l

econd magistrate to issue a second sumTon

after the expiration of the 12 months, merelv

easTof th ?rr°''^ """^'^ -* ^« -""by
reason of tha defendant having absented himself
and could not be renewed or continued, Icau^

W V. Ga, Li,U , CoU Co. (iJlS) 3^' T L B M' '" ''"

4t)^, it. V. Liverpool Jmtkes, 52 L. J. M C 114
I.S.

2

' r

i!|.Ji;

18

INTKRPRETATION OP 8TATDTKB.

the justice who had issued it aad died (a). And
as the same enactment required the justices to
hear the evidence of the mother at the hearing,
and such other evidence as she might produce,
and, if her evidence was corroborated, to adjudge
the man to be the putative father, it was held that
no order could be made against the putative father
when the mother could not be examined, having
died after the summons and before the hearing (h).
Where an Act (c) prohibits the removal of a con-
viction by Certiorari to the Supreme Court, that
writ cannot be issued (the justices having jurisdic-
tion) even for the purpose of bringing up a case
stated by justices for the opinion of the Court ;
although the object of such a prohibition is to
prevent convictions being quashed for technical
defects, but not to exclude the jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, when consulted on a substantial
question which the justices themselves have
raised (d). An Act which imposed a penalty on
any person who piloted a ship in the Thames
before he was examined and admitted a Trinity
House pilot, was held not to reach one who had
been expelled from the Society after examination

(o) 7 & 8 Vict. 0. 101 ; B. v. Pkhford (1861), 30 L, J. M. C.
133.
(ii) B. V. Armitage (1872), 42 L. J. M. C. 15.
(c) 12 & 13 Vict. c. 92, b. 2G.
(<J) B. V. Chmtrell (1875), 44 L. J. M. C. 94.

I.ITKKAI, CONSTRUCTION. 10

and admission (o). The Indian Insolvent Act, 11
& 12 Vict. c. 21, wliich required the insolvent to
file a schedule ol all his creditors, and provided
that his discharge should be a bar to all demands,
like a certificate under the bankruptcy laws in'
England, was held to bar a debt which had not
been included in the schedule, and the creditor
had consequently been deprived by the neglect or
design of his debtor of the opportunity of opposing
the discharge (6). So, where ou Act gave an
appeal to the next session, and directed that " no
appeal should be proceeded upon " if it was found
by the session that no reasonable notice had been
given, but should be adjourned to the next session,
the appellant was enabled to secure delay by
omitting to give any notice, so that the session
could not find that " reasonable notice " had been
given (c). In these two cases the construction
worked an injustice and enabled a person to take

(o) Piene v. Hopper (1720), 1 Stra. 249. Seo. 48 (rf) of
2 4 3 Geo. V. o. 31, aubjeots a pilot who acts during suspension
to a penalty not exceeding £100.

(h) Ewp. Parhury (1861), 30 L. J. Ch. 518; Comp. Me>,a» v.
Alcard, 22 L. J. Ex. 45.

{c) 9 Geo. I. 0. 7 ; B. v. Bucks, 3 Bast, 342; B. v. Stafford-
Mre, 8 B. R. 668. The better law, however, at the present day
appears to be that an appellant cannot by any conduct on his
part make impraotioabla the sessions which otherwise would be
the next praotioable sessions; B. v. Surrey Jmlicea (1880),
6 Q. B. D. 100, at p. 107, and see B. v. Suttex, 34 h. 3. M. C. 69.

20

INTKRrHETATION l)K STATUTES.

advantage of his own wrong or neglect (<j); but
the language of the Legislature admitted of no
other coustruotion.

Tho Act which required members of Parliament,
before voting in the House, to take the abjuration
oath in a form which concluded with the declara-
tion that it was taken " oi the true faith of a
Christian," received a literal construction, which
had the effect of excluding Jews from Parliament ;
although the history of the enactment showed
that it was intended to test the loyalty, not the
religions creed, of the member, and was directed
solely to the exclusion of Eoman Catholics ; and
though those who refused to take the oath would
have been deemed Popish recusants, and liable to
banishment as such (b). So the plain language of
the Test and Corporation Acts of Charles II.,
though the first of them was really aimed only at
the actual holders of offices, and the second at
Eoman Catholics, had the effect of disqualifyi" ,
Protestant Dissenters from public employmer'^^.
"Where an Act disqualified from kilhng game all
persons not possessing land of a certain value,

(o) See Chap. VIII, Sec. III.

1^6) 1 Geo. I. St. 2, c. 13 ; Miller v. Salomons, 21 L. J. Ex.
161 ; 22 Id. 169 ; Salamom v. Miller, 8 Ex. 778. Jews were
relieved from having to take the oath " on the true faith of a
Christian " by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, amended by 23 & 24 Vict. o. 63.
As to Eoman CatlioUca, see 10 Geo. IV. o. 7, & 30 & 31 Vict. c. 63.

MTRRAL COKBTRUCTIOS.

21

except the heir apparent of an esquire or other
person of higher degree, it was heM that esquires
not possessed of the requisite propt cy qualification
were not excepted. However sirange it might
seem that the Legislature should refuse them the
privilege which it had granted to their eldest
sons (a), it was held to he safer to adopt what the
Legislature had actuaUy said rather than to con-
jecture what they Lad meant to say (/-). So,
until 1875 under an Act which qualified for the
magistracy owners in immediate remainder or
reversion of lands leased for two or three lives,
it was held that a remainderman expectant on
the death of a tenant for life in possession was
not qualified, as there was no lease. There was
perhaps no good reason why the qualification
should not have been extended to such a remain-
derman, but there was no actual absurdity, incon-
venience, or injustice in the omission (c). The
rule in the Ballot Act, 1872, which provides that
a candidate may undertake any duties which any
ageat of his, if appointed, might have performed,
and may assist his agent in the performance of
such duties, and " may be present at any place
at which his agent may, in nursnance of the Act,

(o) Jones V. Smart (1785), 1 T. R. 44.
(6) Per Ashurst J., Id. 51

(<•) 18 Geo. II. 0. 20 ; Woodward v. Waltt, 22 h. J. M C. 149
See 38 & 39 Viot. o. 64.

INTEUPnF.TATIOfJ OF HTATUTM.

attend," was construed literally as authorising
the preHence of the candidate absolately, and not
only iu the event of his undertaking the duties
of his agent or assisting him ; though it was
conceded that this construction gave a barren
and useless, or even mischievous, right against
uliich the other provisions of the Act seemed to
militate (a).

A statute which empowered a Court of Bequests
to summon any person residing in a town or navi-
gating from its port, by leaving the summons at
his abode, and to proceed ex parte if he did not
appear, was held to justify ex parte proceedings
against a seafaring man who had for months before
the summons, and during the whole of the pro-
ceeding, been absent beyond the seas (A). So,
where an Act authorised justices to hear bastardy
cases on proof that the summons had been served
at the last place of abode of the putative father,
it was held that they had jurisdiction iu a case
where the latter was abroad, and had had no
cognizance of the summons (c). The Carriers Act,

(a) Olemenlion v. Mtutm, 44 L. J. C. P. 171 . See per Brett J ,
Id. 217.

{b) Cuherton v. Mellon, 12 A. & E. 763.

(c) S. V. Damarett, 37 L. J. M. C. 21. See also B. v. Darit,
22 L. J. M. C. 143 ; B. v. Bigham (1857), 26 L. J. M. C. 116,
Comp. B. V. Smith (1875), L. E. 10 Q. B. 604. It dhould be noted
that in bastardy a summons cannot be served on the alleged

LITERAL OOS8TRUCTI0!* II.HrSTRATKD. 23

1830(a) which exempted a common carrier from
TIZ *'r '"\°' " •"J"'^ '» certain clae
mBnred(A), was construed literally as exempting
hjmrom liability, even when the'loss .TZl
to his negligence, so long as such nedi^ence did
no amount to a w.;iful misfeasance, o^r aTr ng':^
act mconsjstent with his character of carrier M

Luo'J' nT"^"'' '°'°^' '«^"'""« intoxicating
bquofs, sod by retail not in cask or bottle or

n quantities less than half a pint, to be sow

ITT' r'^' ''°°"^'"g *° *he imperial
standard would be violated by the sale of be"r
even at the request of the customer, in a vessel'
containing one-third of a quart, there being no
^mperial measure answering to that quantity (J)
The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, which
empowered by s. 60 (repld. by 46 & 47 ^^t
c. 49) a judge to order either party to a cause
to produce documents upon the applLtion ofTe

putative father out of England. R v. L<sM/oo, (1856). 20 J. P.

(o) 11 Geo. IV, & 1 Will. IV. 0. G8.

(i) Doej, V. £. * jr. ffr. Sy, Co.. ri9191 1 K r co, „
».so i.^. K. W. n,. Co. V. A>L, [iSJ i N 234 ^

{.e) Binton v. Dihhin (1842) 57 H R 7<:i. w .
^.fi%Co.(1876).45L.J.iB 289 ' *"'"" "

W 35 & 36 Viot. 0. 94 ; Pa^. v. Thoma.. 60 L. J. M. 0. 3.

34

INTERPRETATION OF 8TATIJTE&

other party supported by his own afSdavit, was
held not to authorise an order on the afladavlt
of another person in its stead (a), even though the
party is absent beyond seas (b). And the same
Act, by s. 60 (repld. by 46 & 47 Viot. o. 49), in
empowering a judgment creditor to obtain an
order for the examination of his debtor, was held
not to authorise the examination of the directors
when the debtor was a corporate body(c). So,
the Solicitors Act, 1860, 23 & 24 Vict. c. 127, s. 28,
which authorises the imposition of a charge for
costs on property "recovered or preserved " (rf)
through the instrumentality of a solicitor, was
held not to authorise such a charge where the
suit was to prevent or stop an invasion of the
right to light ; for this was a suit not respecting
property, but respecting an easement merely, or
the mode in which it was enjoyed (e) ; nor to a
case where the proceedings had not gone beyond
a decree for an account, and the parties had then
compromised without the knowledge of the solicitor
of the party who thereby did recover property (/).

(o) Chriitophertm v. Lolinga, 38 L. J. C. P. 121; Comp.
Kingtford v. O. W. B. Co., 33 L. J. C. P. 307.
(6) HenclfieU v. Clark (1866), 25 L. J. Ex. 113.

(c) Dickton V. Neath <t Brecon B. Co. (1869), 38 L. J. Ex. 57.

(d) As to what constitutes recovery and preservation, see
WingfieU v. WingfieH, [1919] 1 Ch. 462.

(e) Foxan v. Oateoiyne, 43 L. J. Oh. 729.

(/) Pinkerlon v. Eaiton, 43 L. J. Oh. 878. Comp. Moxon v.

NO ADDITION OB OMISSION. 25

A direction on his deathbed by the holder of a
pronnsso,7 note that it should be destroyed as

unconditional renunciation of his rights" on the
note within s. 62, BiUs of Exchange Act, 1882 (a).
And a like rule applies where, without renunciation
in wnting, the bill is given up to a third party lb)
It IS but a corollary to the general rule in ques-
tion, that nothing is to be added to or to be taken
from a statute, unless there are similar adequate
grounds to justify the inference that the Legisla-
ture mtended something which it omitted to
express (c) : "it is a strong thing to read into an
Act of Parliament words which are not there, and,
m the absence of clear necessity, it is a wrong
thing to do"(d); «we are not entitled to read
words into an Act of Parliament unless clear
reason for it is to be found within the four comers
of the Act itself " (e).

S""'s'' ^- \^-^- '''' '"''" """-^y ""^ •«» P^'-J into
Conrt. Sea also Be Wadmorth. 54 L. J Ch 638

(a) 45 & 46 Viot. o. 61 ; Be George, 59 L. J. Ch. 709.

(i) Edvmri, V. Walier,, [1896] 2 Ch. 157 C A

T ^'1 t?.^"" "°^'' °-^- **"" ^- ^'»'' 2 M. & Gr. 277 • per
Lord Eldon Da,i. v. Marll>arougH, 53 B. B. 29; j,er W

ZL <nt- Tv'o'- '''^^- ^' '^'"■"»"^'". 1 Phil. 258.
See also mf. Chap. IX, See. I.

(d) Per Lord Mersey, Thompim v. Ooold, 79 L, J K B 911

(a) Per Lord LorebumL.0., mer,v.£«,«,79L. J.K.B.965.

^^jjjjj^i

20

INTERPRETATION OP BTATXITBB.

m

But where a section of a public Act is incor-
porated in a private Act the subsequent repeal
of the public Act will not repeal the section inter-
polated in the private Act (a).

A case not provided for in a statute is not to
be dealt with merely because there seems no good
reason why it should have been omitted, and the
omission appears consequently to have been un-
intentional. Thus, a Divorce Act, which provided
that any order made for the protection of the
earnings of a deserted married woman might be
discharged by the magistrate who made it, was
held not to empower his successor to discharge
it, though the magistrate who had made it was
dead (i), and this rule is of general application (c).
An Act which authorises the removal of lunatics
to a hospital when there is no lunatic asylum
established in the county, does not authorise
such a removal when a county asylum exists,
but is so full as to be unable to receive another

(o) Jenkina V. 61. Central By. (1912), 81 L. J. K. B. 24.

(6) 20 & 31 Vict. 0. 85, s. 21, amended by 21 & 22 Vict. c. 108,
ss. 7-9 ; Exp. Sharpe (1864), 5 B. & S. 322. See also Netllelon v.
Burrell, 66 H. E. 658; Wanklyn v. Woolhtt, 72 B. E. 545;
B. V. AsUurton, 8 Q. B. 871.

(c) Higgt v. Schrceder (1877), 47 L. J. Q. B. 426 ; Newton v.
Boodle, 16 L. J. C. P. 135; Nind v. Arthur, 7 D. & L. 252;
Ouen V. Henihaa (1877), 47 L. J. Ch. 267 ; Callow v. CatUm
(1877), 2 0. P. D. 362.

'Si'

NO ADDmON OB OMIBBION. 27

lunatic (a). It was at one time held that if an Act

aseal denotuig the date of renewal, a copy of the
^t cannot be substituted for the origin^ for thi!
purpose when the original is lost(*), but it

IZT^T^T-^- '■ "•>'• ^' *^^* "-^-

losT h« r . P'°^°<=t»on is necessary, has been

he lot T /'v' ^"^«'' "P"*^ ^'^S satisfied of
the loss and of the correctness of a copy thereof
rnay order that such copy shaU be scaled Td
served m heu of the original writ." So, also it
was held under the repealed Act 26 & 27 Vict

eleotinl' ^'"''^«"''''*«d tl"** -''Bwers made to an
election commission should not be admitted i„

indictment" for perjury, left such answers ex-
cluded m .. informations " for peijury fiJby the
At^mey-General («). Similarly, anlct requL ng
not ce of action for " anything done » by a per^of
m the execution of his oifice, was held not to
extend to actions for words spoke, i. the execu-
tion of it(d); and the provisions of the County

Jl^' r ?" ^'^'*'' ^ ^- ^- ^"l' ^'^ contingency is now
prodded for by s. 68 of tte Lunacy Act, 1890. ^

L B , ^ TVo ''• '''"''" '■ <'«''""<« ^- J- QB.137
(«) * V. SZofer (1881"), 51 L T D B o.ic j •v-i^.io/.

Vict. c. 51. s. 59, Ld Schednfe 4 ^" ' ""' ^^ "' * "

W 11 & 12 Vict. c. 44, 8. 9, repealed by S. L B 1894

%a/ Aguarium v. Parkiu«„,. 61 L. J. Q. B. 409. '

« INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

Court Act, 1888, which require certain formali-
ties to be gone through before bringing an action
against the bailiff, do not extend to a motion by a
trustee in bankruptcy for the delivery up by the
bailiff of property seized (a).

When the Common Law Procedure Act, 1852,
abolished the writ of distringas without providing
for the service of a writ on limatios in confinement
and inaccessible, it was found that no actions
could be prosecuted against them (4). So, when
extra-parochial places were made rateable, without
either repealing the enactments which required
that a copy should be afSxed on or near the doors
of all the churches in the parish, or making any
other provision for publication, it was held, where
there was no church in the extra-parochial place,
that a rate affixed on a church door fifty yards
from the boundary was invalid for want of pubh-
cation (c). 4 & 5 W. & M. c. 20, which required

(o) 51 & 52 Viot. 0. 43, s. 50 ; iJ« Loci (1890), 63 L. T. 320.
See. 2 of the Public Authorities Protection Aot, 1893 (66 & 57
Viot. c. 61) repeals so much of any public Aot, including the
County Courts Aot, as contains a provision that notice of action
shall be given.

(6) Bolmea v. Seniee (1854), 24 L. J. 0. P. 24 ; WaUamton v.
Maggs, 28 L. J. Ex. 5. See s. 17 of the Common Law Procedure
Aot, but see Judio. Act, 1875, and Ord. 9 (5), R. S. C.

(c) 17 Geo. II. c. 3, and 1 Viot. o. 45; B. v. Zli,o« (1882),
51 L. J. M. C. 104; s. 4 of 45 & 46 Vict. o. 20, avoids the
difficulty discovered in this and cognate oases.

NO ADDITION OB OMISSION, 29

fntoLtr*! "^""^^ '^ ^°«^«*«^' ^-''oted that
undooketed judgments should not affect lands as
regarded purchasers or mortgagees, or have Le
erence against heirs or execlrs 2 Ts C
0. 11. abolished docketing, and enLted tharno

oversight, resultmg m hardship on an executor
who had p^a Simple contract debts withoutt^
mg sufficient assets to meet an unregistered inZ
ment of which he had no notice, the SSnse"'
to supply the omission (a). These were allT
<^issi which the Court^ IJZ Tht Z
recognised canons of interpretation ^

the^roTmtSnrf st:' ^:f>-^^ of

;i^efort^.purp^7:'CtL-ro^:;j

the Act as hmiting the exercise of the power to a
reasonable time (6). 21Jac I p !« i. •
vided that the ^titute ^iLL^S^
run while the plaintiff was beyond the se^ and
4 & 6 Anne c. 16, having made a similar pro^isSn
where 'he defendant was abroad, s. 7, 3 & 4 W y
0. 42, enacted that no part of the Ui:ited Kingdom

(a) Futter v. Bedmaa (1859), 29 L J fih qoi . *i,-
is remedied by s. 3 of 23 & 24 ^ct « 38 """"''

^ W Brad/., V. Gr.»„,H Board of Work. (1878), 47 L. J. M. C.

II

90

INTEBPBETATIOK OF STATUTES.

should be deemed "beyond tho seas" within the
meaning of the former Act, but made no mention
of the latter Act ; and it was held that 3 & 4 W. IV.
c. 42, could not be stretched to include the latter
Act (a). There may have been no good reason for
thus Umiting the new enactment to the Act of
James; but there was no sufficient ground either
in the context or in the nature of the consequences
resulting from the omission, for concluding that
the Act of Anne was intended to be included. So
when the Married Women's Property Act, 1870
(repealed with certain savings by 45 & 46 Vict. c. 76,
8. 2), empowered a married woman to sue, without
making her liable o be sued, it was held that no
action lay against her (6). Sec. 11, Habitual Crimi-
nals Act, 1869 (repealed by 34 & 35 Vict. c. 112),
in enacting that upon a trial for receiving stolen
goods, a previous conviction for any offence involv-
ing dishonesty should be admissible against the
prisoner as evidence of his having received with
guilty knowledge, ^jrovided that notice were given
to him that the conviction would bo put in
evidence " and that he would be deemed to have
known that the goods were stolen until he proved
the contrary," omitted, however, to enact substan-

(o) Lane v. Bennetl, 1 M. & W. 70; Battenhy v. Kirk, 2 Bing-
N. 0. 584, and see Mailer v. JBroim (1876), 1 0. P. D. 596.

(h) 38 & 34 Vict. o. 93, b. 11 ; Havcocla v. Lablaclw, 47
L. J. C. P. ul4.

IfO ADDITION OB OMISSION. 81

tively that this efieot shoald be given to the
oonviotion; and it was held that the omission
omJd not be suppliBd(a). Without such an
emendation, the notice was incorrect and mis-
nding; but it did not lead to any injustice or
mconvemenoe or other mischievous consequence.
Although the BiUs of Sale Act, 1878, required that

TXf^lV°t"''°'' "°^ *'^''* "*^« attestation
should state" that the instrument was explained
by the solicitor to the grantor before execution, it
was held that no explanation was required ; for
the Act did not expressly enact that an ex-
planataon should be given; it required only
tnat the attestation should assert that it had
been ^ven(6). Again, although the Bankruptcy
Act, 1869, provided for securing for the general
body of creditors the proceeds of goods of a debtor
sold in execution, it made no express provision for
deabngwith his goods when seized under an elegit •
and It was held that the omission, however fatal
to the whole policy of the Act, could not be sup-
phed by any stretch of judicial interpretation (c).

(«) B. V. Dati, (1872), L. B. 1 C. C. B. 272

(6) Be^aled as regards attestation by solicitor by 45 & 46

c ?2 ffia^T' ? \ '■ ''''• '°- ^^^^ ''y ^6 & 47 Vict,
0. Si, B. 146. See also Se Hutchimon (1885). 55 L. J. Q. B. 582.

32

INTEBFBBTATIOM OF STATUTES.

Where a Bailway Act provided that the oom-
pany, while in poBsession, tinder the Act, of lands
liable to assessment to parochial rates, should,
until its works were completed and liable to
assessment, be bound to make good the deficiency
in the parochial assessment by reason of the land
having been taken, it was held, at first, that the
company was bound to make good the deficiency
in any one of the parishes through which the line
ran, only until the hne was completed within the
parish (a); but this construction was rejected by
the House of Lords, who held that when the com-
pany have completed and are actually working a
line, or part of a line, within any parish, the
company can claim, and is liable, to be assessed in
respect of the actual letting value of the Uue, or
part of a line, so completed and . actually worked,
whether it be or be not as valuable as the assessable
property for which it is substituted, and Vthether
the whole of the line of railway authorised by
their Act of Parliament has or has not been
completed (6). So s. 49, Bankruptcy Act, 1869,
which enacted that " an order of discharge shall
not release the bankrupt from any debt or liability
incurred by means of any fraud or breach of trust,"

(a) Whiteehureh v. Eaat London By. Co., h. B. 7 Ex. 248,

424; see also B. v. Metrop. Viatr. By. Co., 40 L. J. M. C.
113.

(6) Ea»: London By. Co. v. Whiteclmrch, h. E. 7 H. L. 81.

NO ADDITION OB OMISSION. 33

was held not to be confined to a fraud or breach of
trust committed by the bankrupt personally; for
such a construction could only have been put
Tr *t'.7f «'*^« by reading "his" instead
tL^^ . "! *^' ''°'^' "fr""-^ «' breach of

hZ ■ r \l "^"^"^ *^' ^°'^« "committed by
Dim after them (a).

A construction which would leave without
effect any part of the language, would be rejected,
unless justified on similar grounds (6). Thus
where an Act plainly gave an appeal from one
Quarter Sessions to another, it was observed that
such a provision, though extraordinary and per-

Sr.r'"'^^*' """'^ "°* be eliminated (0).
32 & 33 Vict. c. 51, which gives to certain County
Courts power to try claims under .£300, arising out
of any agreement in relation to the use or hire
of a ship," or in relation to the carriage of goods,
with an appeal to the Court of Admiralty, and
power to the latter Court to transfer any such
causes to itself, was at first held not to give the
County Court jurisdiction over suits for the breach
of a charter-party, notwithstanding the compre-

(«) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71; Cooper v. PrM.ar,,. 52 L. J. Q B
5-b, and see the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 26 (3 t.)
{b) See Chap. IX, Sec. I.

. in/'.^L-'^''" *'''''"'' ^ ^- ^- ^^- »■"> ^ * 5 Will. IV. c. 76
Schedule ""'"''* '' """^ ^' " * *" ^'''"- "■ *^' '• *• ""^

3

84

INTEBPBKTATIOK OF BTATUTBR

hennve natare of the langnage ased; on the
ground that the literal oonstruotion would involve
the presumably unintended anomalies of giving by
mere implication a large, novel, and inconvenient
junsdiotion to the Court of Admiralty, and to the
suitor the remedy of proceeding in rem when his
claim was under f 300, which he did not possess
when It exceeded it(«). But this construction
did not prevail, because it left without eflfeot the
words which gave jurisdiction over any agreement
in relation to the use or hire of a ship (4); and
yet It was difficult to believe that the resulting
consequences were within the contemplation of the
Legislature or the scope of the enactment.

In a case where the technical language used
was precise and unambiguous, but incapable of
reasonable meaning, the Court held that it was
not at liberty, on merely conjectural grounds (c)
to give the words a meaning which did not belonK
to them. 3 Geo. IV. c. 39, had made warrants of
attorney to confess judgment void as against the

(«) amp«,n V. Bine., 41 L. J. C. P. 121; (hnnuM v. Prir.,
(6) Oaudet,. Bro.„, h. E. 5 P. C. 134 ; " The AUna " (1880),

t ^n ; , ;' ^- *"• ™^ "«''' '°'""''«'' <='«™' by iolde/s
of bills of ladmg for damage to goods on board ship durinR
voyage, -Tke BonaJ (1882), 51 L. J. Adm. 65, and see casc^
in note at end of Chap. V, Sec. I.
(<■■) See, however, Chap. IX, Sec. I.

period; and the Co,L of n 7"^"° *^« "ae
to alter "or" iSo^^'^T'':' ^-^^ 'afo«ed
."levied"; thoagTttep^' r ""'■*•'" '"'o

probably but nnV ' ®°'"'" rational, was

ever. will be further oonii' J '"''•'''''*' l""*-
oh«pter(A). considered in a .ubsequent

B^Cm. XU.-.HE 00.TKXX-.„KB.^

CIRCUMSTANCES.

The foregoing elementary rule of «„„ *
does not carry the info, x . construction
fined to cas^wWe ttT '"' '" " " ^on-
capable of but ot constr„„T*'« " P"°"« -^
the history or cause of 7, °''' " ''^"" ''"ther
context, nTr the conL ^'"'otn.ent. nor the

interpreiation trST IT"" *^« "'""^
tation does not expre !! T *^"* *^^* ^^terpre-
express the real intention.

(a) Oreeu v. IToorf 14 r t ^ t.

M . 7 Vict. 0. 66,'and appiiS I ''LTntf '' """"^^^
33 Viot. 0.62 s 2R „„j '^i' °" «> Judges Orders " bv <19 j

^^. at p. 33 ; t,^^a^':^ ^„>« (1881), 1^^
(4) Chap. IX. •'^ ^"^^^- 10 It- 0. L. B. 393.

N INTKBPBBTATION Of BTATDTn.

Bui it ii another elementary mle, that a thing
which is within the letter of a statute will, gene-
rally, be construed ait not within the statute nnlesi
it be also within the real intention of the Legisla-
ture (a), and the words, if snflSciently flexible, must
be construed in the sense which, if less correct
grammatically, is more in harmony with that
intention (A). Language is rarely so free from
ambiguity as to be capable of being used iu
more than one sense ; and to adhere rigidly to its
literal and primary meaning in all cases would be
to miss its real meaning in many. If a literal
meaning had been given to the laws which forbade
a layman to "lay hands" on a priest, and pun-
ished all who drew blood in the street, the layman
who wounded a priest with a weapon would not
have fallen within the prohibition, and the sur-
geon who bled a person in the street to sava his
life, would have been liable to punishment (c).
On a literal construction of his promise Mahomed

(a) Bao. Ab. Statute (I.) 5.

(!>) See per Cur., HolUnguiorlk v. Palmer (1849), 18 L. J. Ex.
409 ; Caledonian B. Co. v. N. Bril. S. Co. (1881), 6 App. Cas. 114,
at p. 122, per Lord Salbome ; per Lord Blackburn, EdMuryk
Tramuagt Co. v. Torbnin, 1 App. Cas. 68 ; £a<(»ian Plotographk
Co. V. ComplroUer of Patcnlt, [1898] A. C. 571, Lord Haisbury,
at pp. 675, 576 ; Direct V.S. Cable Co. v. Anglo-American Tt/e-
ffra^*Co.(1877),2 App. Ca8.394,atp.412; «■ ' per Jessel M.E.,
Walton, Exp. (1881), 17 Ch. D. 746, at pp. 750 et teq.

(f) 1 Bl. Comm. 61 ; Puff. L. 5, o. 12, a. 8.

rXLLACT or LITBBAL COKHrnUOnOM, 87

n.'8 sawing the Venetian governor', body in two
«- no bre«>h of hi. engagement to .'pa" "^
head; nor Tamerlane', bnryinff alive a LZ.^^
a violation of hi. pledge Z fhed;oMr(::

the defender of Notinm to a parley under an,?
^«e to replace him .afelyin L cLtl VaiC
to be withm hi. engagement when he detained
h«foe nntil the place was captured, and put Wm
to death after having conducted him Lk t^

^^ *'' ^"' °' ^'«^" '"'«"«^ - t^-^e

tf h w„ r°"'^ ^ **"• ''^^ °' Ol^"**-"*. that
rf he would surrender he would see him sirfe to
England; for h, did not hang him untU a tt h^

SnX^k^r^ --- *^« ^-^ to th:

The equivocation or ambiguity of w^rds and
phrases and especially such as are general t sMd

tms ?: ^Cv h •" .*'^ «'^^* '°''^'- "-pi
,, \ ^ have frequently more than one
eqna ly obvious and popular meaning ; words uL
u, reference to one subject or set of ci^orl":
(«) Vattel, L. N. b. 2. s 273

\ /w J T, '^ *''° Herodotus, iv. 164

(J) Lord Bacon, Advancement of Learning, b. 3.

38

INTEBPBBTATION OP STATUTES.

may convey a meaning quite different from what
the same words used in reference to another set of
circumstances and another object would convey.
General words admit of indefinite extension or
restriction, accordii^g to the subject to which they
relate, and the scope and object in contemplation.
They may convey faithfully enough all that was
intended, and yet comprise also much that was
not; or, be so restricted in meaning as not to
reach all the cases which fall within the real
intention. Even, therefore, where there is no
indistinctness or conflict of thought, or careless-
ness of expression in a statute, there is enough
in the vagueness and elasticity inherent in lan-
guage to account for the difiBculty so frequently
found in ascertaining the meaning of an enact-
ment, with the degree of accuracy necessary for
determining whether a particular case falls within
it. But statutes are not always drawn by skilled
hands, and they are always exposed to the risk
of alterations by many hands which introduce
different styles and consequent difficulties of
interpretation. Nothing, it has been said by a
great authority, is so difficult as to construct
properly an Act of Parliament; and nothing so
easy as to pull it to pieces (a). It is not enough

(o) Per Lord St. Leonards, O'Flaherty v. McDoicell {lHr>7),
6 H. L. Cas. 142, at p. 179 ; and see Coverdale v. Charlton (1878),
48 L. J. Q. B. 128, per BramweU L.J., 2 Q. B. D. ; R. v. M,mek

FALLAOr OF UTEBAL C0N8TBU0TI0N. 39

to attain to a degree of precision which a person
readxngm good faith can understand, it is Lces-

Sit °''*r/, T' °^ ^'"''^°'' ^Wch a person
reading in bad faith cannot misunderstand (a)

The hteral construction then, has, in general,
hntpnmujac.. preference. To arrive at the real

meamng, it is always necessary to get an exact
cone t , ^ l^ ^..^^^ J^act

CoWM 1 wu /°°''^'''' ^"''''^^S t° Lord
Coke (6) 1. What was the law before the Act was

wk^ch the law had not provided; 3. What remedy
Parhament has appointed; and 4. The reason of
the remedy. According to another authority, " in
order properly to interpret an^- statute it is as
necessary now as it was when Lord Coke reported
Heydons Case to consider how the law stood
when the statute to be construed was passed, what
the mischief was for which the old law did not
provide, and the remedy provided by the statute
to cure that mischief "(c). The true meaning

(1877), 544, at p. 552; T„,„cro.s v. Granl (1877) 2 C P D
469, at p. 496 ; 4 Q. B. D. 104, at p. US

L.?M'c.lr'" '•• ''*""''""'• ^''- ^''''' ' ^- »■ '''■• "0
(h) Heydon-s Case. 3 Hep. 7b ; Mar.kal.ea Case. 10 Hep. 73a
tomp. Bradlaugh v. Clarhe (1883), 8 A. C 354 at n Sfifi .,
52 L. J. Q. B. 505. « ^-- 304, at p. 366, «( «ej. ;

^ Lb. 28, at p. 35; 67 L. .1. Ch. 337. • L J

40

INTEBPBETATION OP STATUTES.

Of any passage, it is said, is to be found not merely
m the words of that passage, but in comparing it
with other parts of the law, ascertaining also what
were the circumstances with reference to which
the words were used, and what was the object
appearing from those circumstances, which the
Legislature had in view (a). Every clause of a
statute should be construed with reference to the
context and the other clauses of the Act, so as so
far as possible, to make a consistent enactment of
the whole statute or series of statutes relating
to the subject matter (*).

As regards the history, or external circumstances
which led to the enactment, the general rule which
IS apphcable to the construction of all other docu-
ments IS equally applicable to statutes (c), viz
that the interpreter should so far put himself in tlie
position of those whose wordc he is interpreting,

(i877) 2 App. Cas. 743 ; sniper Lord Halsbury L.C , Ea,t,„a„
Co. V. Comptroller of Patent.. [1898] A. C 576

[I898]ta7«.'''"^' ""^''' "■"" ^^>'-''^ ^- ^- ^^^■.
(c) It has indeed been said that it is safer to abstain from
.mpos.ng w.th regard to Acts of Parliament any further ca Z
of construcfon than those appUoable to all documents- Per
aowen L.,I., Lamplouffh v. Norton (1889), 22 Q. B D 452-
TLtAt,Ui:n-,r°----hislse,feel'

EtTEBNAL CIBCUM8TAN0RS.

^xti^ tdiroft: ''-'- -''''' -'^^^ ^^^

i°ade, so far as they throwli! J "'^ «°«t>-act was
which the AoonZt^Zll'lZl" ""'*'"*"
and position and couU of "i/o/^^ ^^^^^on
who made it or are SJ ^^ '^^ P'"°°«

admitted as ind^pe'aS:;!" "' '^ ^^'^''^^
of identif-nK snpJ, T P"'P°'« ''°* oily

explaining the Ian Ja T" T' *^"^^' '"* ^'- °^

ambiguoulor^silS TftruVLr ^■^*^"^^'
shades of meaning and of IT ^^'''"^' °''

the oirc„mstance^:lt'^^'^V*;r^"^*°
when a Charter pJ, . , ''*®' ''^- ^hua,

byice-isnTtobe^LSr^^ *^^* "^«t-«on
t^'e meaning inten^d ^l^rm ^'"^ 'T'
accurately determined withU'^arLX: o^

(o) Wigram Int. WUIb Pm„ k -i^ ,
"ood r. Magniac(mi) L J^h L t '' ^'""""y ^'J- ■»<"»-

225, p.. Bran,wen B.; Jj !'p""r " *'""' ^ «■ * N.

V- i«W, 23 U J. Ex. 228 • lZ n t * ^- *^^- «""'"

•^«-.o„, 77 L. J. Ch 729 1« ft' ' "*■ ' ^- ^- 283; ii«
^" « (1912), 81 L. ,T. Ch. 646.' '' ^"""■^""y'-' Set,h„.nl.

42

INTERPBETATIOX OF STATOTES.

Hi

the circumstances of the port and trade which the
parties possessed, or are conclusively presumed to
have possessed; and evidence of these circum-
stances is received for the purpose of accurately
construing the contract (n). When a vessel is
warranted seaworthy, the meaning must vary with
the nature, not only of the vessel but of the voyage ;
and evidence of these circumstances is admitted
in order to ascertain the precise intention of the
parties. In a lease of a house with a covenant to
keep it in tenantable repair, it is necessary to
ascertain whether the house is an old or a new
one, whether it is a tenement in St. Giles's or a
palace in Grosvenor Square ; for that which would
be a repair of the one, might not be so of the
other (h). So, on the sale of a horse warranted to
go well in harness, the qualities of a good goer
would be different in one fit to draw a lady's
carriage, and a brewer's dray ; and it would therefore
be necessary to inquire what was the kind of horse
which was the subject of the warranty (c). Where

(o) Hudson V. Ede. 37 L. J. Q. B. 166 ; on ahe. Beeper Eshei-
M.R., Smith v. Somrio Nitrate Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 178; see
also Bekn v. Sumeu, (1861), 32 L. J. Q. B. 207, and Benl^on v.
Tat/lor, [1893] 2 Q. B. 274.

(4) Outteridge v. Mmyard, 1 Moo. & E. 336 ; Lmdon v. 0. W.
R. Co., 70 L. J. Ch. 622 ; Lurrott v. Wakely, [1911] 1 K. B. 900.

(c) See jdgmt. of Blackburn J., Burgen v. Wickham (1863),
33 L. J. Q. B. 17, at p. 28 ; Clapham v. Lr.nglcn (1864), 34
L. J. Q. B. 46. Both of these cases relate to Marine Insurance.

■XTEKNAI, CIRCUJI8TAVCBM. 43

a guarantee is worded in language equally applic-
able to a past and to a future credit, evidence of
the state of the dealings of the parties at the
time may be given in order to determine which
was the real sense in which they used the words (aJ
bo, m the interpretation of statutes, the inter-
preter in order to understand the subject matter
and the scope and object of the enactment, must,

or defect for which the law had not provided ; that
IS. he must call to his aid all those external or
histoncaJ facts which are necessary for this pur-
pose, and which led to the enactment (6), and for
these he may, as regards ancient statutes, consult
contemporary or other authentic works and writ-
mgs(c), and may also consider whether a statute
was mtended to alter the law, or leave it exactly
where it stood before (d). It being " a very serious

(«) Gomede V. S«,a„. 16 L. J. Ex. 284 ; Wood v. p,fe,,„,.,

Ch. 305 Morrell v. Studd .y MilUngton, [1913] 2 Cb, G48
(6) florAam v. E.eter (B^.). Bep. by Moore, p. 4G2 ; see per
Bramwell B.. A.-Q. v. Sille,,, (18fi3), 2 H. & C 431, a p. 531
V^ Coler.dge J., M. v. «/„„.. 13 Q. B. 773 ; per Th^sige' L.. .,'

S.^.SX\llp^"=^^--^ --«---
{c^ Sea Bead v. Uncoln (Sp.), 62 L. .1. P. C. 1 ; inf. p. 108
('0 Pe.- Cozens-Hardy L.J., & a Debtor, [1903] 1 K. B. 705.

44

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

11"

matter to hold that when the main object of a
statute is clear it shall be reduced to a nullity
by the draftsman's unskilfulness or ignorance
of law " (a). In his celebrated judgment in the
Alabama arbitration, Cookbum, C.J., showed, by
a reference to their history, that both the American
and English Foreign Enlistment Acts of the early
part of the nineteenth century were intended,
not to prevent the sale of armed ships to belli-
gerents, but to prevent American and English
citizens from manning privateers against belli-
gerents(*). 5 Geo. IV. c. 113, for the abolition
of the slave trade, was construed to extend to
offences committed by British subjects out of the
British dominions, that is, on the West Coast of
Africa, by the light of the notorious fact that the
crime against which the Act was directed, was
mainly, if not exclusively committed there (c);
though it may, perhaps, not have extended to our
subjects in other parts of the world beyond our
territories (d). . An ordinance of the colony of

(o) Salmon v. Dunambe (1886), 11 App. Cas., at p 634 ■
Bex V. r««y (1905), 75 L. J. K. B. 117, [1905] 2 K. B. 7i8,
0. G. B,

(h) Supplement to the London Gmetle, 20 Sept. 1872 p 4135

(c) B. V. Zulueta (1843), 1 Car. & K. 215; Sociile de,' BoleU
Reums v. Bamker (1913), 29 T. L. E. 578.

(d) Per Bramwell B., Santos v. Jllidge (1859-60), 8 C. B. N S
861, and see the judgment of Wright J., in Ka«/man v. Gerion
[1903] 2 K. B. 114 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 320.

EXTERNAL CIRCDMBTAN0E8. 45

Hong Kong which authorised the extradition of
Chmese subjects to the government of China, when
charged with "any crime or oflfence against the
law of China," was construed, either by reference
to the circumstances under which the treaty (which
the ordmance enforced) had been made or to the
geographical relation of Hong Kong to China, as
limited to those crimes which all nations concur
m proscribing („). An Act which authorised " the
Court" before which a road indictment was pre-
ferred, to give costs, was construed as authorising
the judge at Nisi Prius to do so, partly on the
ground of the weU-known fact that such indict-
ments were rarely tried by the Court in which
they were, in the strict sense of the word, " pre-
ferred " (6). In construing an Extradition Act
the terms of the treaty which it was intended to
carry into effect should be considered, as the two
documents ought not to conflict; accordingly
where the treaty provided that no extradition
should be made for offences committed before it
came mto operation, the Act, though silent on the
point, should be limited in the same way(c).

There is some presumption that statutes passed
to amend the law are directed against defects

(o) A.G. V. Kwoh-a-Sing (1873), L. R. 5 P. C. 179, 197.
(i) S. V. Pembridge, 12 L. J. Q. B. 47, 259.
(0) 33 & 34 Vict. c. 52, amended by 36 & 37 Viot. o. 60, and
by 58 & 59 Viot. o. 33 ; R. v. Wilxm, 3 Q. B. D 42

46

ISTBBPBETATIOIf OF 8TAT0TE8.

Which have come into notice about the time when
those statutes passed; and on the ground that
s. 7 Railway & Canal Traffic Act, 1864, was
passed to correct a state of the law brought into
notice by a legal warfare which had been waged
about negligence only, the reference in that
section to losses of goods "occasioned by the
neglect or default of" such company or its

by the theft of a servant of the company without
neghgence on their part, that not being a loss by
neglect or default on their part (a)

^„>t^'^'/'' *^' ^""""^ *^''* " ^"^ '" prevent
delay and costs that the Legislature enacted in
8. 4, Arbitration Act, 1889, that, '< before delivery
of any pleadings or taking any other steps in the
proceedings,- a.,y party may apply to the Court
to stay the proceedings, it was held by the House
of Lords, that a defendant who had taken out a
summons and obtained an order for further time
for dehvering his defence had taken a "step"
within the section (4).

Ja) 17 & 18 Vict. c. 31 ; Shau, v. G. W^ B. Co.. [1894] 1 Q. B.

ZIk , !^^;"'""'«2 L- J. Ch. 697; Cou„„ Tkein..

fffi/'f ■ ^- "'• "^^ ^- ''!■ -C"' «>« ""ere filing o

^dav.ts ,n answer to a motion for a Beoeiver is not •• a Ip
m the proceedings" within the section. Za/™/ v. Ha,n«onl

47

BXTEBNAL CIBCUMSTANCES. „

from every meaS; „f?J";' •""'"^^ » ''^P^rture
Their fbirnLt to r^T °' ''^ ^'"•
the true sense, when thJ » '"S^S^''*"'^ » key to
-ore than one ^d thly rtt br/"'''"- "^^'^ '°
^th the view of applSrth! I "' '° '°''^'''
wasintendedandofS*^.!. ""«""«" *° ^hat
not intended (a) *^ '* '° ^^''* ^-

It has been said that unless fn- »

import, or employs worrrftth 1 ^°"'"^"'
the pre-exisjg wTs n' t r r.""^ '""^''«'

Claun.7„.,-^,„;;:,';^;27clr' 'o'" Staten.ent of
intention to defend by fiUine ud th„ i' °°' " ®'™S ""''"^ "'

other hand attendance boft^^SraJd "^ ^"' °'' ""''
protest on an orfer has been h"uLr "'""'"=*''« '^'""«"
-edings." C„*«„ , ^r«.;a;" '"gg''':; f P '" 'bo pro-
out a summon, for discovery i a, L .'' !l ' . '"■ ^"''"'S
«.. V. Turpin, [1918J i R. B. 35a ^^ "''*"• -''"'•^' <"

(o) See diotum of Jessel M H »■ /
-d R V. £„,,„•„•„,. 5, L J 0 U 'T I- ^"*' = Ch. D. 905;

562. ' °''''' ^^ '^l'- D-. at p. 609 ; 50 h. J. Ch.

m Per Lord HeisohoU Bk of V , j
A. C. 144. ■ *• "■'^ ^"fl'''""' V. Vanliano. [1891J

g^f^'

48

INTKBPRETATIOM OF 8TATUTK8.

;'f!

Act, in the main, expresses in abstract proposi-
tions, the conclusions of law or equity which have
been reached by the Judicature, ex gr. Bills of
Exchange Act, 1882, and Sale of Goodi Act, 1893
In relation to the latter, Cozens-Hardy, M.R has
said in a modern case: "I rather deprecate the
citation of earlier decisions. The object and
intent of the statute was no doubt simply to
codify the unwritten law applicable to the sale of
goods; but in so ;>r as there is an express statu-
tory enactment, that alone must be looked at and
must govern the rights of the parties, even though
the section may, to some extent, have altered the
prior Common Law " (a). Yet counsel, and even
eminent judges, will refer to the earlier decisions
If only for elucidating an argument (A). And
indeed, as regards a Consolidation Act— t-^; J
Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908-if it re-'
enacts, with a like context, a word or phrase in
one of the Acts consolidated which has received
judicial mterpretation, that interpretation will
generaUy, be applicable to the same word or
phrase in the Consolidation Aot(c).

Eeference has been occasionally made to what

(o) Brittol Traumas, Co. v. Fial Malm-, (1910), 79 U J. K. B.

(ft) See judgment of Parwell L.J, Walli. v. Pratt (1910), 79
L. J. K. B. 1023.

(c) See, hoi.ever, cases .litecl, p. 109, inf.

MMKNAL CracuHmyOM. .„

the framoM of the Ant ■ ,.
*heI^egi,,at„ei.Ud al'tr'^J --^- of
or nndentood it to have7„n / f ^^ enactment,
Hengham said :hat he LewJ! ' ^^'^^ ^"'■"oe
the n.ean,-ng of th 2d WeltmtT *''"' *"'""''«'
d,"»wn up that statute <^r?''x'" ''^ ^""J
claimed that he had tie ^^^^ ^°«'''«h«'«>
°»eauing of the Statute of P ^ ° ^°°^ *h«
«aid,ithadhaditsfir«rw /"""''■ ^«°'"'««. he

^-«ht it intotX7:JTLo7!': '"^'^^
Kenyon supported his cnL ^°''^^(c). Lord
0. 20, by the Vulent th? ™°*'°" °^ '^ ^''"e,
as Mr. Justice ?owe« 1 Trr™*^ ' ''^^y^^
^°»W have used stvlit : .''"'*"" "' ^«^«'
sufficed (rf). Lord Fil !! T*^' ^'"^^ one
Wlity that the eminen Jair u"'' '""P""""
Judicature Act, TsTS w T" ''^° ^'"'"^d the
certain exception ffthe7S ""* ^''^^ -a^^e a
Halshury states howe^eTtStTh l^^^" "^^'^
than one occasion said ih.Tl^ ' *"" ™ore

oonstrueastatute^s the„« ^V""* ^^^""^ to
forits draining, for L tCT/'" " '"P°-^''^e

15 A. C, at pp. 577 el „„ ^ •^•' '° <'''« ^- -BWie.. [1890J

W Year Book of 31 pj r ., -,

(«) A V. Warn,, 5 T. B. 379

p. 544. ™' (^^SO)- 60 L. J. Q. B. 89; 15 ^ p.. at

I.S.

00

INTBIirBBTATION IP BTATUTB8.

wh«t he intended to do with the effect of the
lugnage which ia fact he has e -jployed (a). Yet,
in determining the meaning of the rubric on vest-
ments in the Prsyer-book (enacted by the Uni-
formity Act, 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4), the Privy
ConnoU, in one ecclesiastical case, referrel to the
introduction of a proviso by the Lords in that
Act, and its rejection by the Commons, and to
the reasons assigned by the latter, in the con-
ference which ensued, for the rejection, as an
indication of the intention of the Legislature («) ;
and in another, to a discussion between the
bishops who framed or revised the rubric and the
Presbyterian divines at the Savoy Conference in
1662, as showing the meaning attached to it by
the former (e). And it has been stated .a a
general proposition in ecclesiastical matters that
if the law excludes all historical investigation
and discussion on antecedent usage in matters of
ntual and practice it excludes one source of light
upon doubtful questions ((/). Lord Westbury
when ChanoeUor, referred to a. speech made by
himself, as Attorney-General, in the House of

(o) Hilder V. Dexter (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 781, at p. 783.

(6) Hebbert v. P«rM<«, 40 h. J. Eoo. 33, and see .Vaeio«Me
V. Martin (1881), 6 A. C. 424.

(c) Sidadale v. Cliflon, 46 L. J. P. C. 27.

(il) See Halsbury L.C. in Read v. BMop of Lineoln, [18921
A. C, at p. 652.

Sr wZh'" '^' '° '"'""'"""« *»■« Bankruptcy

Z; !^i """ T:f '°*° '"^ •" '•'^ '-"owing
year : aud one of his rearons in favour of the

tS^^" "?"•' ''^ P"* «"» *••« Act wa^ ha i
iTh 1 "' *'" *5'"*' *'""'°''«'' "' *»»« LegiBlafure^

tTme tha. It. ^"* ^^ °''"^«^' ''* *he same
time, that he had endeavoured, in forming his
opimon, to divest hi. mind, as far as possiWe ot
aU impressions received from the past, a^d tj
oon...er the language of the Act as ifi haTbee;
presented to him for the first time in the cas^

st/r ?r^i- ''^^ '^p°"« '"">»i^ other r

8tances(«). But it is unquestionably a rule that
what may be called the parliameuf ly h« o,^ o
an enactment is not admissible to exp Zit'
mean.ng(c). Its language can be regarded ol
as the language of the three Estates of the reZ

n 4HR . n , ^ «■ 'i- 32; iBoKMej, v. Imaa, 3 H &

LfiT lTo r ^:'""'""' '' ^' ■'■ °''- 1^''^ ^"''•™ V

649; per Pollook C.B, ^.-«. v. SilU. ' H & C Vi. ;'
Bmmwell B.. 537 ^^' ""^ '"''

m

liiji'

52

INTERr lETATION OP STATUTES.

U|

and the meaning attached to it by its framers or
by individual members of one of those Estates
cannot control the construction of it (a). Indeed,
the inference to be drawn from comparing the
language of the Act with the declared intention
of its framers would be that the difference between
the two was not accidental but intentional (A).
Accordingly, the Dower Act, 1833, 3 & 4 Will. IV.
c. 105, was construed to apply to gavelkind lands,
although this was avowedly contrary to the in-
tention of the real property commissioners who
prepared that Act ; for they stated in their report
that it was their intention that it should not
extend to lauds of that tenure (c). Sir Francis
Moor, who drew the Statute of Charitable Uses,
43 Eliz. c. 4, says, in his reading on it, that a gift
of lands to maintain a chaplain or minister for
divine service, or to maintain schools for cate-
chising, was not within its meaning, having been
intentionally omitted, lest they should be con-
fiscated; since religion being variable according
to the pleasure of succeeding princes, that which

(o) Dean of YnrV, Ca,e (1841), 2 Q. B. 1 ; 57 B. E. 545. Per
PoUook C.B. and Parke B., Martin v. Bemming (1854). 10 Ex.
478 ; Cameron v. Cameron (1834), 2 Myl. & K. 289 ; BeLtead v
Phartix Gas Co. (1866), 34 L. J. Ex. 108.

(6) Per Tindal C.J., SallceU v. Johnetm (1847), 2 C. B. li'\ at
p. 757, and see EuhUle v. Payne (1885), 52 L. T. 530.

(c) Farleyiv. Bonham (1861), 30 L. J. Ch. 239.

BXTBBNAL 0IBCCM8TANCBS. 68

was orthodox at one time migh, be superstitious

at another, and s- I,« forfair.d(a); but such

devises were nevertLcJt.? afterwards held to fall

withm the Act (ft). So, what took place before

the committee cannot be invoked for putting such

a construction on a private Act(c), as wiU limit

Its application to one party to the detriment of

the general public. Although for the purpose of

construing it the Court would be at liberty to

consider the position of the parties concerned, and

may come to the conclusion that a particular

clause was inserted at the instance of a party who

was present, for his protection, and conferred

upon him such an interest as to entitle him to a

mandamus to compel compUance therewith (d).

Another class of external circumstances which
have, under peculiar circumstances, been some-
times taken into consideration in construing' a
statute, consists of acts done under it, for uslge
may determine the meaning of the language, at

(o) Duke, Char. Uses, 125,

0. a li. ^^*' ^'""'"'' ^' ^'''"'- ^^- ^^^ ■ ^"""' '■ ^'■"' " b™.

(c)Davi, <t Som v. Taff Vale By. Co., [1895] A. C. 542 ■ Steele
^if.i^«. 5. Co.. L. B. 1 Ch. 282; ,er Lori Alverstone^J
■«. V. Manchetter Corp., 80 L. J. K. B. 265.

W B. r. Manche,ter Corp. (1910), 80 h. J. K. B 263 As

527-530^"°°*''' '" """''"^"S '"""^ «'»"^««. ^ inf. PP-

54

INTKBPRBTATION OF STATUTK8.

all events when the meaning is not free from
ambiguity (a).

■iriv

SECTION IV. — THE CONTEXT — EARLIER AND LATER
ACTS ANALOOOUS ACTS.

Passing from the external history of the statute
to its contents, it is an elementary rule that con-
struction is to bo made of all the parts together,
and not of one part only by itself (It). Inoivile est
nisi tota lege pervpecta, una aliq%m particula ejun pro-
ponila, judicare vel respondere (c). Such a survey is
often indispensable, even when the words are the
plainest (d) ; for the true meaning of any passage
is that which (being permissible) best harmonises
with the subject, and with every other passage of
the statute. If one section of an Act, for instance,
required that "notice" should be "given," a
verbal notice would, generally, be sufficient ; but
if another section provided that it shoald be

(a) See ex. gr. LeverUm v. R. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 394, at
p. 404, and other oases referred to int., Chap. XI, Sec. I.

(b) Co. Litt. 381a ; Lincoln College Case, 3 Hep. 59b. Per
Lord Blackburn, Turquand v. Board of Trade (1886), 55
L. J. Q. B. 417.

(c) Dig. 1, 3, 34.

(d) Per Lord Esher, M.E. and Pry L.J., Lancashire and Torks.
B. Co. V. Knoiclee (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 391 ; and 6ee ChamhiT
Oollienj Co. V. Sochdnle Canal Co., [1895] A. C. 564, at p. 571,
et aeq.

THE CONTEXT.

55

" served " on a person, or " left " with him, or in
a particular manner or place, it would obviously
show that a written notice was intended (a).
Sec. 2, Prescription Act, 1832, 2 & 3 Will. IV.
c. 71, in protecting certain stated easements from
disturbance after specified periods of enjoymont,
uses an expression which unambiguously includes
all such easements, that is, those in gross as well
as those appurtenant. But s. 5, which, in pro-
viding a form of pleading to be applicable to all
rights within the Act, gives a form which could,
from its nature, be applicable only to rights appur-
tenant, shows that the wide expression in the
earlier section was used in the restricted sense of a
right appurtenant (h). So, in the Dower Act, 1833,
3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 105, the word "land," which it

(a) 43 & 44 Viot. c. 42; 2 W. & M. c. 5; Moyle v. Jenkim,
51 L. J. Q. B. 112 ; Wiltm v. Nighlingale, 70 E. E. 727 ; B. v.
Shurmer, 55 L. J. M. C. 153. See Portingell, Exp., 61 L. J. M. C. l!
See also Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, a. 2, providing
that Notice of accident is to be " given " ; which, on the context,
imports that the Notice is to be in writing (ffi<yie« v. Coed Talon
Colliery Co. (1909), 78 L. J. K. B. 539), (as to what constitutes
notice in writing see Slevent v. Ituolea, [1912] 1 K. B. 36, C. A.),
whilst the Claim which, under the same section, has to be
" made," maybe oral {Lome v. Myeri (1906), 75 L. J. K. B. 651,
(note, p. 656), and need not be for a specific sum (Thompaon
V. Ooold (1910), 79 L. J. K. B. 905).

(i) SkuUleworth v. Le Fleming, 34 L. J. C. P. 309; approved,
followed in Mercer v. Denne, [1904] 2 Ch. 534; ri9051 2 Oh
538; 74 L. J. Ch. 723.

56 INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

defines as including manors, messuages, and aU
other hereditaments, both corporeal ^andinco"
poreal, e^ept such as are not liable to dower, was
held not to mclude copyhold lands; because s. 6
which provides that a widow shaU not be entitled to
dower, when '< the deed " by which the land was

to tlT';",^". '"^'^''^ ''°''*''-« - ^-'aration

tlf tf '°u' "^"""'^ '^** "''^y ^»°^« ^^^^ were
transferable by deed were within the contempla-
tion of the Legislature (a). So a colonial statute
which required an executor to file particulars of
the personal estate " of the testator was held to
refer-to such personal estate only as was held by
the testator in the colony, it being clear that in
other parts of the context a number of simUar
expressions had to be subjected to limitations or
quabfications of the same nature. One of the
safest gmdes, it has been said, to the construction
of sweeping general words, which are difiicult to
apply m their full literal sense, is to examine
other words of like import in the same instrument
and to see what limitations must be imposed on
them; and if it is found that a number of such
expressions have to be subjected to Umitations
and qua ifications, and that such limitations and
quabfications are of the same nature, that circum-

p'li. "^- "^ ^- ^'^""'- 22 B- B- 328; inf.

THE CONTEXT.

67

Stance forms a strong argument for subjecting the

or default nf fi.„ '"'""'° °^ *^ie ship or the act
groutd for bel^ri' *'°''^' '* ^^^ ^^Ole

5it^ist:Lre:*i^t^rs

a person of ordinary skill would have though ha
there was no reasonable ground for detenS ( f
So where one section of 25 & 26 Vict el no

vvorKs might order it to be set hn^t

srunrrir;. ^^^^r-' --~-^

should be erected if 'T "°° '^""'^-^"
erected m any street, without the

S8

INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

consent of the Board, beyond the general line ; the
latter section, which, per se, would have included
alterations, whetlier on new sites or old, was con-
fined by the former to buildings erected on land
which had been hitherto vacant (a). Where one
section of a repealed Act imposed a penalty for
selling "as unadulterated " articles of food which
are in fact adulterated ; and another declared that
a person who sold an article of food " knowing it
to have been mixed with another substance to
increase its bulk or weight," and did not, in selling
It, declare the admixture to the purchaser, should
be deemed to have sold an adulterated article, the
different wording of the two sections showed that
under the former the seUer would be liable though
he was ignorant of the adulteration (4). Comment-
ing on this :.tter section, Lord BusseU of Killowen
says in Spiers 4- Pond v. Bennett, " I do not think
there need be mem rea in order to constitute an

(o) Lord AuckUnd v. Wettmintter Board of Work, (18721
41 L, J. Ch. 723 ; Wendon v. L. C. C, 63 L. J. M. C. 117 • as to
the meaning of ■• obstruction " or •■ encroachment " within's. 1 of
the Act of 1862, see Viger, Bros. v. London C. C, [1919] IK. B 56
Comp. Worhy y. St. Mary AhhotU, 61 L. J. Ch. 601. See also
Doe V. Olley, 54 E. R. G07 ; Lavy v. L. C. C, 64 L. J. M. C. 262.
(J) 35 & 36 Vict. 0. 74, repealed by 38 & 39 Vict. e. 63, s 1
which latter Act is amended bv 42 & 43 Viot. o 30 48 & 49
Vict. c. 61, 3. 5, 62 & 63 Viot. o. 51, and 7 Ed. VII. a 21 ■
Fu.iH.trici V. Kelly (1873), 42 L. J. M. C. 132; Dyke v. 6ou,er
(1891), 61 L. J. M. C. 70; [1892], 1 Q, B. 220

COMPARISON OF BE0TION8. sy

Offence under the second part of the section. If
the article which was in fact altered by abstraction
was sold without disclosure it would constitute an
offence under this section " (a). A provision in an
Jinclosure Act which reserved to the lord his right
to minerals, and to the working of them as fully as
If the Act had not been passed, without paying
compensation, is materiaJly limited by a direction
that " highways should be set out over the land " ;
for this latter provision would preclude him from
working the minerals under the highways without
leaving adequate support (/>). One section of
the Companies Act, 1862, which enacted that
where a company was being wound up by or
under the supervision of the Court, any distress or
execution put in force against the property of the
company after the commencement of the winding-
up "shaU be void to all intents," was 30 modified
by another which enacted that when an order for
wmdmg-up had been made, no action or other
proceedmg should be proceeded with against the
company, except with the leave of the Court, that
Its true meaning and effect was only to invalidate
the proceedings which it pronounced void, when

(a) (1896), 65 L. J. M, 0. 144, at p. 147.

(b) BenfieldMe Local Board v. (?«,«,( Iron Co., 47 L. J.
i-Ji- 491; and see A.-G. v. CunduH Collier!, do. (1894), 64

k J '^' ^' ^''^' ^' ■*■ ' *' '° "S''' ""' *"'■'"' '° saooessive
subsidences, see Barley Main Colliers Co. v. Mitchell (1886)
o5 L. J. Ch. 529. '

60

INTKBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

the Court did not sanction them (a). Clause 21
in the Schedule to the Ballot Act, 1872, which in
express terms requires the presiding officer at each
station to exclude all persons except the clerks,
the agents of the candidates, and the constables
on duty, was found to include also the candidates
thamselves in the exception, since a subsequent
clause (61) provides that a candidate may be
present at any place at which his agent may
attend (h). The words of s. 1, Fine Arts Copyright
Act, 1862, which give to the author of every
original painting the sole and exclusive right of
copying, engraving, reproducing, and multiplying
such painting, and the design thereof, by any
means and of any size, are seen (when reference
IS made to subsequent sections empowering the
owner of the copyright to obtain a forfeiture of the
piratical imitations) to be inapplicable to the repre-
sentation of a painting by a tableau vivant (c). In
all these instances, the Legislature supplied in the
context the key to the meaning in which it used

(o) Be London Cotton Co. (1866), 35 L. J. Ch. 425. See also
Vron Colliery Co., In re (1882), 51 L. J. Ch. 389, C. A., and
British Salicylates, Ltd., /» re, [1919] 2 Ch. 155. See now
ss. 140, 142, Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908.

(6) ClemenUon v. Maton (1875), 44 L. J. C. P. 171.

(c) 25 & 26 Vict. 0. 68, amended, and partially repealed, by
Copyright Act, 1911 ; Uanfitaengl v. Empire Palace, [1894]
2 Ch. 1 ; see further, Ban/staengl v. Borne., 64 L. J. Ch. 81
[1895] A. C. 20.

BEPEBBNCE TO KABLIER ACTS. gj

expressions whica seemed free from doubt; and
that meaning, xt is obvious, was not that ;hioh

m ^ °7 ""^'"'^y "^'^'^Sed to them
earner Act should, so far as was consistent Z

r;'™:J ? °''^""^ ■'• - --tmentTSlte
sta ute that nothing therein should include deben-
tures was held to exclude debentures from th.
earher one also (a). It has been observed, howevt
that when an Act embodies several dist not H
one part throwsno further light on the o ^ pats
than would be cast upon them by separate ^d
distinct enactments to the same effect («)
i.^; '!/ '^^^^ ''""'"' °^ '^''lAct is introduced

taien Ld '" ' "T "''' ^''^ ^^""^ -^ich it is
taken, and consequently it is legitimate to refer

il ilt f r ""u""*' '"^°"8^ °°« ««"««" only
IS incorporated m the new Act (c).

(a) Head v. Joannon, 59 L. J o Tl "iid . . ^

WS. Co., In re. [189 ] 1 Qh 627 C A . t *'"^"-''

L. J. Ch. 292. ' J ^ ^0- ba?, C. A. ; and Exp. Lo«,e, 60

2 Ir. B. 132. And '1",, p 54i?~°"' '"'""■ ^''''^
10 App'i^i^Sf "'"""' ^"^'^ "^ ^-"-^ - *«■■« (1885;

«9

INTERPRRTATION OF STATUTES.

Probably, the rule as to the exposition of one

Act by the language of another is satisfactorily

and most oomprehensiTely laid down in the broad

statement of Lord Mansfield, that : " Where there

r are di£fereut statutes in pari materid, though made

I at different times, or even expired and not refer-

I ring to each other, i.ey shall be taken and

I construed together, as one system and as explana^

tory of each other " (a).

For instance, a by-law which authorised the
election oi ' any person " to be Chamberlain of
the City oi London would be construed so as to
harmonise, and not to conflict, with an earlier
one which limited the appointment to persons
possessed of a certain qualification, and " any
person " would be understood to mean only any
eligible person (6). Where a question arose as to
whether s. 7 of the Admiralty Court Act, 24 Vict,
c. 10, which gives that Court jurisdiction over any

(o) B. V. Loxdale, 1 Burr. 447, adopted in the C. A., GoU-
mitU Co. V. TTyoH (1907), 76 L. J. K. B. 169 ; but in S. v.
TiUerlon, [1895] 2 Q. B. 67, Lord BasBell of Killowen C.J.,
observes that " it is proper to refer to earlier Acts in pari
tiiaterid only where there is an ambiguity." See also per
Cotton L.J., Sutlon v. Sutton, 52 L. J. Ch. 337, cited by Bray J.,
SImk v. Crompton, 80 U J. K. B. 56; MclVilliam v. Aitamt, 1
Maoq. H. L. 136, per Lord Truro.

(6) Tobacco Pipe Makem v. Woodroffe (1826), 7 B. & C. 838
(overruling Oxford v. Wildgoote, 3 Lev. 293). See also Poulterer's
Co. V. Phillips (1840), 6 Bing. N. C. 314 ; 9 L. J. C. P. 190.

BRrKBBHOE TO LATER aOTB.

03

i^ul^Z'T'"" """^ •'^''''y "'"•p. -elided
fo Tcdt „\7'"""'' ^y o"'""'""; one reason
, '"?"^'°« "" **»« negative was that in other Aots
•« pan materid Inaa nf i.c- , ocner Acts

B 26 7nn2" , , ^^P'"«»«<»» "possession" in

Pe Pl lltTat Lh' J'^ «^P--*^'- of tie

actual possession " of if ir. ■ '"

construed in the sat "'' °'°''*'^^ <*>• ^^^

of Uses, wiL dec Z thTth" " *'^ ''"*"*«
the use of the landT to be d/'T.^'" "'^^
" possession "of it -an^ ^"^^ ''» ^"^^"J

of arent-oharKe ivaf '"'"^^^"^'^"y the grantee

the latterlaL ;LIl7rr "^""^'^^ ""^-
it. within thecal ngoMh?Rr 'r"^°° °^
the People Act IRqo f .. Representation of

tion of the d 'ed M • T 'I' '''' °' '^' ^^^^u-
(«)S«.M „"'^^^' *'"'"^h « grantee under a

{a) SmM V. Brown (1871) 40 L r n n <„>
^- Cru. (1884). 54 L J. p. „ ^ A f ^, '"^U*""' " ^'^

W The qualifying period uadt 7 ^8 G«f v «.
months, see s. 6. ' «• 8 Geo. V. o. 64, ig six

ms^^',^ ir «:: ', 'f '■ ''■■ ^->'-- -«'-

'"r: (1883), 53 L. J.' Q. B. 144 " "^ "• ^'"S'"''' Over.

•• iNTXRPBrrATiox or sxATimw.

common law conveyance would not be in pones-
won, within the same Act, until he had received a
payment of the rent-charge (a).

Not only may the later Act be construed by the
light of the earlier, but it sometimes furnishes a
legislative interpretation of the earlier. Thus
Chapter 23 of Magna Charta (9 Hen. III.), which
provides that " all weirs shall be put down through
Thames and Medway, and through all England,
except by the sea-coast," was held to apply only
to navigable rivers, because 26 Ed. III. and other
subsequent statutes spoke of it as having been
passed to prevent obstruction to navigation {!,).
To determine the meaning of the word " broker,"
in 6 Anne, c. 16, the Bubble Act (6 Geo. I. o. 18)
passed twelve years later, was referred to, where
the same term was nsed(c). In s. 299, of the
repealed Merchant Shipping Act, 1854, which
enacted that damage arising from non-observance
of the saiUng rules should priml facie be deemed
to have been occasioned by « the wilful default " of
the person in charge of the deck, the expression

(o) Murray v. ThomiUy (184G), 15 L. J. C. P. 155 ■ 69 K R
477 ; Orme; C<ue (1872), h. R. 8 C. P. 281 ; 42 L. J. C P 48

(i) 25 Ed. III. Stat. 4, c. 4; Rolle v. Whute (1868), 37 L. J.
g. B.lOo; and see Leco^Jield (Lord) v. LonMe (Lord) (1870)
U J. C. P. 305 ; Callis on Sewers. 268, 4th ed., at p. 305

oJ'r ?''^''V- •^"""'"' * ^- * *''• 8«; S«.M V. Luuio (1858),
27 L. .T. C. P. 196, 335.

»»UIBNca TO lATBI Acra

" wiMU defenlt " «

deolaret that the sUd wh k ' ^' °' ''^"l'
collision BhaU be dwL J, k.'^"'^'"'*'^ *!»«
JoludinganegCtrweuL '^ '"^*'" "
But where one Act " 42 vJcr'^n/'"''' <*>•
«f»^e the effect of ind^Z. 1 °- ^^0' "• 18)

;- the Pa7n.ent°'i'roCtrr """'*•
(Common Law Prn«oj ^' "^ * '»'« one

-thorised o«lo« :£"oh.''^ ''^' "■ ««)

«cover the amonn" by the 1""'' ^■"'«°'«"* *°

't iatrodnoed, of foteiL »f! u '^ ^'°*'*'"'' '^J''°h

that this reinedy y ;'^^T*' " ^"^ "eld

Court, the objectVl fotS *" '""^^ °'

be merely to give to ru^ th« k P^"^"« *°

remedies of judgments, and o tht lat^". ''"*^°«

same force as if tW w . * *^.'^ '^""^-J have the

^ been referred t7for I'T '""^"'^'^ ^'^ ^* ^^^e

'heinterpretationStt&rir?*^
WBepe.Jedby67 4 58v,. L ^nd now by the

6U ;«r Willos J. ; 36 fToTia? 'r^' ^^ «" ^ «" P-
i-yifcroy, Co. (1903), 73 L. J. k b 374' '^ ^'' ^- ''^

« L. J. Q. B. 212. * ^- "= ■8"'v.P«»4«,fc(i873),

W fl. ^nrfr«r, 45 L. J. Bank. 57.

■!, !^

66 INTEBPBETATION OF STATDTBa

Interpretation Act, 1889, s. 31, it is provided that
rules, orders, etc., made under an Act shall be
construed as using expressions in the same sense
as the Act (a).

The language and provisions of expired and
repealed Acts on the same subject, and the con-
struction which they have authoritatively received,
are also to be taken into consideration ; for it is
presumed that the Legislature uses the same
language in the same sense, when dealing at
different times with the same subject, and also
that any change of language is some indication
of a change of intention (6). Thus s. 202 of the
repealed Bankruptcy Act of 1849, which made
" void " aU securities given by a bankrupt to a
creditor to induce the latter to forbear opposition
to the bankrupt's certificate, was construed in the
same sense as that which had been given to the
same provision in the earlier and repealed Bank-
ruptcy Act of 6 Geo. IV. (c). What was meant in
s. 4, Vagrancy Act, 1824, 6 Geo. IV. o. 83, by

(a) 52 & 53 Viot. o. 63. See ImtiMe of Patent Agent, v.
Lochmod (1894), h. J. P. 0. 74, inf. p. 93.

(b) See Chap. XI, Sec. III. ; B. v. LoxdaU. sup. 62, and see
Devo«port Corpn. v. Towr (1902), 71 L. J. Oh. 754. Principle
approved in Stoomnart MaalKha^g Nederland y. P. i 0 Steavi-
Mp Co. (1882), 7 A. C, at p. 816.

(c) GoUnnH v. HampUm, 27 L. J. C. P. 286. See also Copdand,
Exp., 22 L. J. Bank. 17, inf. p. 479 ; 4 & S Geo. V. o. 59, is now
the statute relating to Bankruptcy; see s. 44 as to preference

67

BOTBBBWOTS TO BEPBALBD ACTS.

*o the eJrtt^^'ZTl'Zl'l'''''"'^
persons who "mn „, ' ^^'"^ ^P^^^e of

intootheAurs:/p;je?^,,^r *'r '''°^«^

of the kingdom " Za P^'^^*' »°^ sometimes out

apply to a'wI'an'LTft r'°--''' "* *°
door of the worSuI Jf ^' "^^^^'^ ''t t^e
abode in the tol ^^^^^ 1° i- -ual
situated (*). Where'a «"?'"''"" "*^
penalty on the owner of ?„f«/ ""P°'^^ »
highway "withora 4t"' '7,J ^^"« - a
vision was re-enaoted SSt t^^ , .' '""'" P"'
omission was oon8t™«r ^ ^'''* ''°'"'^«' *he
intention th"t the "11 "o T."^^ ^'°^^ *^«
longer absolve the o^CTom Sa 3,^"^^ ^

Where a part of an A„f i. .. ^^"f-
m^, although notXerfti^fo rstSCi "
mto consideration in oonstruingTe' S fL t'"
part of the history of th. 7 ' ^°' '* '«

instance, an Ac7wLS '^•'*<'^>- ^f' ^°'

. n Act which imposed a duty on

(Bnspeotedper8on)(19i7,,86L.J.K B9S8 '* "' ■^«»"

(i) Cb«6r,A,, JT-m-o, v. Pan- 30 r T t n „
"-^ see Pefe.. v. o«„,, 46 L J M 0 '^n ''' ^" ^^'^^ -^^ ^

W27&38Viot.o. 101 a 25 r
^ J- M. 0. 78; and ,>^oZ' T ^^ ^''^ ^^^)- 37

i Q. B. 816. ''"""^ "■ ^^'^«9 (1869;, L B.

(<*) See sup. pp. 40-48.

68

INTEBPBETATIOII 0» STATUTKB.

racehorses, oabhorses, and all other horses, were
repealed as regards racehorses, the remaining
words would still obviously include them, if the
enactment were read as if the repealed words had
never formed a part of it (a). Where a statute
imposed a duty on artificial mineral waters, and on
all other waters to be used as medicines, and the
duty on artificial mineral waters was afterwards
repealed, the repealed words were held essential
for determining whether what still subsisted of
the Act, though wide enough to include artificial
waters, was intended to include them. It has
been said, however, to be an extremely hazardous
proceeding to refer to provisions which have been
absolutely repealed, in order to ascertain what the
Legislature meant to enact in their stead, though
there may be occasions on which such a reference
would be legitimate (b).

The construction which has been put upon Acts
of similar scope on similar subjects, even though
the language should be difi'erent, may for a similar
reason be referred to. Thus, the provision of
9 Geo. IV. 0. 14, requiring that an acknowledgment
to take a debt out of the Statute of Limitation
should be signed "by the party chargeable
thereby," was held not to include an acknowledg-

(o) Per BramweU L.J., A.-O. v.Lamplough (1878), 3 Ex. D. 214.
(6) Per Lord Watson, Bradlaugh v. Clark* (1883), 8 Apr. Oas.
301, at p. 380.

BWEBENOB TO ANALOQOCT ACM. 69

ment by his agent, on the ground that when the
JSts n^ T'^' *° ^"^^^^ *^« ««natn" o'f

^LTone 71? r*'°"' °' *^« «*•**«*« °^
uas, one of which was recited in the Act

express words had been used for the purposed '

rtTdf-^"-^^-

Assessments Act, 1836, 6 & 7 Will. IV. o. 96(6)

repealed Bankruptcy Act, 6 Geo. IV. c. 16 s
131 (rf). under the Statute of LinutationR Vd

{») Jie EUtone and Bom. 88 L J Q r e o '

Court Acts. 1888. s. stTna i903 s^a „ , '^. T °°"°'y
has been raised to filM. ' ^' '"'"^*' ^'"''*' ""« ^-Ju"

(«) Lemayne v. «oii/e» (1681) 3 Lav «/„ ,7 • .

ft J: ^"**'™' «> ^ «• «»; 0^7„. V. V-4l817) 17
^-'^ (186771- B/Htrpi°39 " *"""^'' "" ''"'"" '•

70

INTEBFBETATION OF STATUTKB.

under the repealed Parliamentary Voters' Begistrar
tion Act, 1843 (a).

But where the Acta are not in pari materiA, it is
fallaoioas to take the oonBtmotion which has been
pat npon one as controlling the constmotion of
another (i). For instance, the meauiag pat on
the words " goods " in the reputed ownarship olaase
of the Bankruptcy Acts would be no guide to its
meaning in s. 17, Statute of Frauds, now s. 4,
Sale of Goods Act, 1893, not only because the
words associated with it are different, but because
the objects of the Act are wholly different (c). For
the same reason, the Parochial Assessments Act,
1836, 6 & 7 Will IV. c. 96, was held to throw but
little (if any) light on the meaning of " the clear
yearly value " of a tenement which qualified a
voter under the Representation of the People Act,

li

I ! .^-

(a) 6 & 7 Viot. 0. 18, s. 17 ; repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. V. o. 64,
fl. 47, and Schedule VIII. ; Bennett v. BrmtfiU, 37 L. J. 0. P. 26.
Cbmp. S. V. Coviper, 24 Q. B. D. 60, 533.

(h) DevBhunt v. Feilden, 66 B. B. 696, per Manle 3. ; Eyre v.
WaUer, 29 L. J. Ex. 247, per Wilde B. ; Gerard". Eriate, Be
(1893), 63 L. 3. Oh. 23 ; and see Stanford v. Bobertt, [1901] 1
Oh. 440.

(c) Bumhle v. Mitchell (1839), 53 B. B. 318 ; 9 L. J. Q. B. 29,
and see Colonial Bank v. Whinney (1886), 11 A. C. 426 ; 56
L. J. Oh. 43 ; for later oases under b. 4, see Morrit v. Baron,
[1918] A. 0. 1, H. L. (E) ; Meggeton v. Grovet, [1917] 1 Oh. 158 ;
Parier v. Orig,, [1919] 1 K. B. 481 ; Tki$kell v. Oambi, [1919]
W. N. 195.

CONFINED TO ANALOGOra ACT& 71

1832(a). Because chambers are a "house" for

the repealed r/^' P""'^"^ '"' «* ^°*« '^'^^er
1832 (711 ^:r««''*''^°" of the People Act.

sion in the House Tax Act. 1808. 48 Geo. Ill

-er^irprArrh^L;::ra;r:

carriages propeUed by .team or other ageLw^) °°

(<») 2 Will. IV. 0. 45 8 27 /„_ , .,
modifications in 48 & 49 'v!^f ' P!*"*^ "- ™-enaotod witii

69 B. B. 473 ; 15 L.7c. P iW ' Lt ""f " ''"^ (^'*«>'
(1883), 63 L. J. Q. B. 60. "' "'""^ ■^"»"- '^- ^■

Jb) B. V. S<. Oeorge'i Union (1871), 41 L T M n an .,
Bo Hecqmrd, 24 Q. B D 71 • B v\; . . " ^°- <''*^-

W i?. V. Rwor/i (1836), 5 A. & E. 261

(<J) ffe»re«e v. Boott (1863), 33 L J fl P Ri ^ .
..w. see Bep^eentation If Jfi t°-,^,f ' » 'o «-«"«

(e) a«iM ond IViK*'. Cate, Cro. Oar 473

^6, Qrant v. ia,j,.to„ (I899), 69 L J p c fifi « ^

fi. V. Oxf„d (V.C), L. B. 7 Q. B. 471 ®^- ^^ '"«°

(?) TOKaw V. £Z/,> (1880), 49 L J M O 17 Q ,

S:; ""^'^ "''•(^^«)- ■^^^'■^'^"^^oT-

««•«» V. «ynn«r.fey (1903), H. 357 ■""*' "" •*■ -

^8 INTEBPBBTATION or 8TATCTEB.

It may bo added that in oonstruing Aots of a
private or local character, sach as RaUway Aots,
the Courts do not shut their eyes to the fact that
special clauses, frequently found embodied in them,
are in eflFeot private arrangements between the
promoters and particular persons; and are not
inserted by the Legislature as part of a general
scheme of legislation, but are simply introduced at
the request of the parties concerned (a). If the
general provisior. of such Acts wei^ to override

latter r ^T' '^°'' ^ ^^°«« ^"^"^ *te
heard m Committee on every clause of the Act
wluch wou d make it impossible to conduct aly
ther^o 'T'T^'^- 8°°^ special clauses are

rest of the Ac ; so that their wording, contrary
to the genera^ rule, is not to be regarded^
throwing any light on the construction of it (c).

SKOTION V.-THE XmE-THK PBEAMBI,.-MABOXNAL
NOTE8-S0HEDULE-BULES AND OKDEKS.

tio^ff''^\^^" ^ Parliament were mere peti-
tions to the Kmg. They were entered on the rolls

(a) But Bee sup. pp. 53-54
J) Per JeB»l M.E., Ta.lor y.OUKam (1877). 46 L. J. Ch.

78

THE TITLE.

«cord8 into statute to »K wr**' ^'"^ "P *'^''>^
made additions nm;. ■ ' *"®y oooasionaUv

^hen bills in the fori i/!'^'^ °' ^'^^ VI.,
'^ere mtrodnce^f V//?*"*«« -'t^out titles

about the eleventh year ofV T ^"* "'^^^'^
I-ords the original tXcf a^ n*?^ ^''- ^"^^ ^" «"«
stage at which amendm! ^ '' ""'"''^^^ »t any
alterations in th?h:^r4e":.f^^"^-^-
any change in the titu ^^^ 'e^^ered

Commons »ince iL^LT""''^' ''"'* ^ '^^
'eport(.)oronthe^dl^.'" "'""'^"ee (rf) or

^J^s «tle is al^stlhTrXr"'''''^^-
(») J^' L^rd ?, Ji^^g !! ""^ f ^^lative Methods, p. 6.

W May, Parlmy. ft igth J u
(«) W., p. 382. ' '^- "'"'P- "' P- 376.

(/) May, Parlmy. ft my, ^ .
^««« V. Ke«^ Park's! "^^^ ^^' P' ^^S, and see

^ order to facmS^t^,'' ^"r" '' C''- °- «". at p. 513.

- 1896, and aocoZgtiL ''.'"'" ^"' '^^ P-«^
■•eqnirea every Act ff Par^Llf t f "' ''''™ °' ^'"^
'^te^ooo, a short title ina^r ^ *"'' '°' '"^'"'y "'
"bert. Legislative Method! ^I'leVm ""''' '"« '"'^'

74

INTEBPBKTATION OF 8TATUTB8.

But although the title of a statute was reooR-
msed and attached to it by Parliament until quite
modem times, it was not considered a part of the
statute, and was therefore held to be excluded
from consideration in construing the statute
thus.-<.Th. title cannot be resorted to." says
Lord Cottenham, "in construing the enact-
ment (a). "The title, though it has occasionaUy
been referred to as aiding in the construction of an
Act, IS certainly no part of the law," was laid
down by the Court of Exchequer, in a weU-kn wn
and considered judgment, "and, in strictness,
ought not to be taken into consideration at aU " (b)
A^d Lord Denman remarked that the Court had
often laid that down (c).
The rule waa not, indeed, invariably observed (d);

(o) Bunler v. NocioUU, 84 E. B. 217.

(6) Per Cur., SaOeld v. John.lo,, 84 B. B. 258, oitmg Lord
Coke P^Zfe,-, Co,,, 11 Eep. 33b; Lord Holt, MiH, v. Wilkin,
6 Mod. 62; Lord Hardwioko, A.-O. v. Wey,»auth. Ambl. 22-
Lord ManBfield, B. v. WiUiam., 1 W. Bl. 96. See also Chance v.
^dam, 1 Lord Baym. 77 ; and j«, Byles J., Shrewsbury v. Scott.
6 C. B. N S. 1 ; per Lord St. Leonards, Jeffery. v. Boo<^. 4
H. L. Cas. 982; per Grove J., Morant v. Taylor, 1 Ex. D 194 •
per Willes J., Claydon v. Oreen, L. B. 3 0. P. 522; and the
Amenoan case. Sadden v. Tie CoUector, 5 Wallace 110
(e) S. V. Wileoci, 14 L. J. M. 0. 104.

(d) See ex. gr. n. v. Wright. 1 A. & E. 446; Alexander v.
Neuman. 69 B. R 438 ; Tayhr ». Nev,»u,n, 32 L. J. M C 189 ■
Barley y. Barley. 45 L. J. Q. B. 675 ; BenUey v. Botkerham. 46
U J. Ch. 284 ; Eaet & Weel India Dock v. Shau>. 39 Ch. D 831 •

THB TITLK.

78

^^^^^^^

C^^L^-ipT- '"•'■•-^- ^•. « APP. Ca. 77.;
a Oh. a A., at p 694 '^ ^'^^'^'' '''>^'^' Ci9oa]

s.tt ?r ^-- -- -— ;^»s: r.^

(/) Oro«, ,n the good, o/ (19041 7q r : ^^- ^^^•
76 L. J. K. B. 218. ■«"-*«fi*«a<J Gorporation (1907),

(») 1 Bl. Com. (Ed. 1844) 183.

7«

INTKRFBRATTON OF STATims.

(■r

but as neither the marginal notes nor the pnnctaa-
ation appeared on the roll, they formed no parts of
the Act (a). This practice was discontinaed in
1849, since which time a copy of each Act, printed
on vellum by the King's printer, is preserved in
the House of Lords and constitutes the official
record of statutes (ft). Both marginal notes and
punctuation now appear on the rolls of Farlia-
meni; nevertheless, it has been said they are
not to be taken as pans of the statute (c). But as
regards marginal notes, the rule as to their re-
jection for the purposes of interpretation is now
of imperfect obligation. For the purpose of
interpretation a marginal note was used by
Martin B. (d) and by CoUins M.E. («), which latter

(o) Barrington, Obs. on Stat. 394; sae Barroa v. Wadkin, 34
Beav. 337 ; ptr Maula J., B. v. Oldham, 21 L. J. M. 0. 134.
(i) May, Parlmy. P., 13th ed., chap. 15, p. 399.

(c) Ptr WiUes J., and Bovill O.J., Claydm v. Orem (1868),
li. B. 3 0. P. 821 ; jwr James L.J., A.-O. v. 0. E. S. Co.,
11 Ch. D.i6B; per Jessel M.B., Suttm v. Sutton, 23 Oh. D. 813,'
Mtraoting his opinion in Be Venour, 3 Oh. D. 536; and per
Lord Bsher M.B., Duke of Devonthire v. OCotmor. 24 Q B D
478. ■

(d) fficiofcot. V. Fields, 31 L. J. Ex. 233.

(e) Buihea v. BammoiKl (1904), 73 L. J. K. B. 1005, and
Smith V. Porltmouth Jmticee, 75 L. J. K. B. 861. In a. 12
and 24, London Building Act, 1905 (5 Ed. VIL o. OCIX),
marginal notes in that Act are used as referenoes, and see also
Woking Urban Council (Basingstoke Canal) Act, 1911, I» re
(1914), 83 L. J. Ch. 201.

«■ PIKAHBLI. j^

^^ to headings prefixed to Beotione. see iv/.

of tJ!irf°T?r* ^^ *^' ^^«* °' Parliaments
lel7t3;t*'^^""''«°'*^«^°*^«P«to^it

sectntr"*"'" '"'^ "^ "^""^'^ *« ^-'^

The preamble of a statute has been said to be a
good means to find out its meaning, and as it
were, a key to the understandi-^e of iW^ L^
it nsuaUy states, or professes to !tate li'rner^'
objeet and intention of the Legi^tur L pT£

to the purpose of solving any ambiguity, or of
fixmg the meanmg of words which may have more

witbn Its real scope, whenever the enacting ^

(a) 33 Geo. HI. o. 13.

(b) 62 & 58 Viot. 0. 63, s. 8

n

mmPBiTATioK or nATum.

u in any of these reipeoto open to doubt (a).
Thus g. S, 26 Geo. III. o. 107(/>), empowered every
person who had served in the militia and was
married, to set np in trade in a corporate town, as
freely as soldiers might under an earlier enact-
ment, and declared that "no such militiaman"
should be removable from the town until he
became chargeable, — it being open to doubt
whether this expression included all married
militiamen, or only married militiamen who had
set up in trade in towns, the preamble of an
earlier Act fixed the latter as the true construc-
tion, as it was stated that the mischief to be
remedied was the state of the law which prevented
soldiers from setting up in trade in corporate
towns (c). 80, as an Act which authorised aliens
who " shall have been resident " in the country
for two years, to hold land, might either be limited

(a) Bm. Ab. Btet (I.) 3 ; Co. Litt. 79a, 4 Imt. 330, Plowd.
369; HidUm v. Cote, 3Q B. R 373; ^xr Lord Selbome,
Turquond v. Board of Trade, 11 App. Cas. 286 ; Satteie Peerage,
11 01. & F. 143, 144. Bat where the language used in the
sshedule to an Act of Parliament varies from that of the
enacting clause to which it relates the language of the enacting
clause prevails, Jacobs v. Hart (1900), 2 F. (Just. Oases) S3, at
p. 37; Shore v. Cmningham, [1917] 2 Ir. B. 360. For an
article on "The Office of a Preamble," see 6S Solicitors'
Journal, 340.

(6) Repealed 42 Geo. III. 0. 90, s. 1.

(c) B. T. Ouenop (1789), 3 T. E. 133.

■XPLAWB WHAT M DODBTFUI,. 79

to Pe"on. Who had .o resided Wore the pawing

the two meamngs was the more agreeable ta thl

l3sSth«T! ^"'^'"**^ ^y ^'^ fr««" holding
State that such prohibitions should be done awav

I'XtdtgSrerrtr — ^- -

Legi^atL thaf rEr*;r t" m o1 1^
at^d^eptXlTS-^trwS

(4) BryoB v. C*iM, 83 R H 710 ci«o ^ , 1: „
(or easting Uw. " "• «• "«• See 4 & 5 Geo. V. 0. 69,

W See Ch»p. VIII, Sso. ni.

80

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

wMoh enacted that " any order " of Quarter Ses-
sion might be removed to the Queen's Bench for
enforcement, was similarly confined to orders in
appeal cases, by the preamble, which, in reciting
that it was expedient that the law should be made
uniform in cases of appeal, showed the limited
scope of the Act (a). Under a statute which
enacted that when a person came into the occupa-
tion of premises for which the preceding tenant
was rated to the poor, the old and new occupants
should be liable to the rate in proportion to the
time of their occupation, the question arose
whether either, and if so, which of them, was to
pay for the interval between the removal and the
begiiming of the second occupation ; and this was
determined by the preamble, which, by reciting
that in consequence of rated occupiers removing
without paying their rates, and other persons
entering and occupying the premises for a part
of the year, great sums were lost to the parish,
showed that the object of the Act was not to
make an equitable adjustment between the two
occupiers, but to protect the parish from loss; it
was therefore held that the rates were payable
for the interval between the two occupations, and
that the burden feU on the outgoing tenant, who

(o) B. V. Bafenmn, 27 h. J. M. C. 90. The aeotion quoted
on p. 79 does not apply to an order of quarter sessions to abate
a nuisance.

EXPLAINS WHAT IS DOUBTFOL. gj

for a publican to li. u 7 1 ^^°^ '^'^^ '* Penal
and Let Chf;r,';^ °^r*^- to " assemble
broken by hisCStti. . "''' "^""^'^ "°* ''^
taking reUS^tl r^tiSTtb*'^ ^°*^'^°'
a; was -asonably'neoesTaTTr'tw" " '°°^
If the preamble showed t W fl J * P"^°«°'
was the repression oT!?- f . "*'•'**'* ^ ^^w

absolute deSTallLtl't'^''""'"''*' ^°'-'^^
character (6). uL„ f°''P^*'^*y *" Pe«ons of bad

0. 6, which recited n h ""^"""'^ ^''' ^ <^«°- H-
who were iZ I'V ' T"^^^' '' ^""''t as to
enacted tha "^ateTrd d '■ ^^ "' '"'''• ^^
"any will-'shouMbeM T""' ""^^ "'''''^^
bequests and devised to .J T'' '"'* *^'»* *^e
enacting part wa^t ^b^hf r""' 1?°'^' *^«
of land. Wills of pZ,S*,';XlT"'*°"^^
no attestation ■ and fu^ ■ ■ , ^* *""«• 'deeded
n,andthep„nc,pleof....„^,,,,,,^

(«) 17 Goo. II. c 38, 8 laifj ^
1 Q. B. 554; 17 Geo. II „ og „' ,f ""* "■ *»«»«. L. B.
Viet. 0. 41, e. 16, on wWoh "« ^ ^™ "P''«=«' ^y 32 & 33 '

y^.l%t frJ'^"-.^^- ^^-P^'^'e"''. part b, 3a . 36

Aot aMr^ evidence ^urL™™ L"'" "''^ '""«^
P«n.*«„,.^^,,,, J^ - be J^en b, t.e

6

•* INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

cesmt lex, as weD as the iiyustioe of depriving
persons of property, making it reasonably doubtful
whether the Legislature had used the expression
•any will" in its full and unrestricted meaning
the preamble was legitimately invoked to determine
the scope of the enactment (a).

But the preamble cannot either restrict or extend
the enacting part, when the language and the
object and scope of the Act are not open to
doubt {*). It is not unusual to find that the
enaotmg part is not exactly co-extensive with the
preamble. In many Acts of Parliament, although
a particular mischief is recited, the legislative
provisions extend beyond it. The preamble is
often no more than a recital of some of the incon-
veniences, and does not exclude any others for
Which la remedy is given by the statute (c). The
evil recited is but the motive for legislation ; the
remedy may both consistently aaid wisely be

(«) ^™»«.»»./ V. Con.tMe. 3 Buss. 436, overrulmg Lee, v.
S^mn^egM, 17 Ves. 508 ; Brett v. BreU, 3 Addams. 219 Se^

aM'T f" t^- ^' ^*' ^ "*"'*"■ 33 L- J- Q. B. 146.

rZ \ ^;. • ""^ ^''*''"' ^- ^'"" ("66), 1 W. Bl. 659-
Copland V. Savie, (1872), L. B 5 H L ^-is. n

fiott«r»a«(1876),46L.J Oh.284. ' ''"'"'' '■

(c) Per Forteaoue J., S. v. Atio. (1723), 8 Mod. 144.

raPLAWs WHAT IS DOUBTFOI..

than that expressed in ft * ''"^"' '''*«'^«on

the real onef eff f 3" ^,r'""' "'"'^^ *° "«
standing the Ubb Z ^''''" *° ^* "°*^ith-

the meaning of 2' ^°"^^ '° ""^^^ ^^ere

absolutely clL the Co "1 '" ' ^"'*"'^ -

beyond them, when the i'l" If' *" ^°
"»eaning, and at the same 2 " 'P'"' "^ *»•«

waning, the Court :S ^k ^TT*^'''^'
policy of the Act to see wW °^-"''* '^'^

to have (c). Thus 71 Jp. "^"^"^ ^^^^ ""S^t
the abdLtion o/'aJi* Lf • * ^- «■ « (^). -ade

though the pre/mht ^rrStnlyTh •^"^'
and other girls with fn^ / x ^ ° heiresses

0- 10. which^n^alTs^rrLl 'l^' ^^

otprTm^rrrr -^^S'a?i-ri

n^ents, paLuf L ' ^'^'"^ °' '^'^ ^"^-^^'a-

--rho^s:— —i^i^-r

(«) Co. Litfc 88b, u. 14,

84

INTEBPKKTATION OF STATITTBS.

il-i

allowed by the Act, was not narrowed or controUed
by a preamble which recited only that divers
ecclesiastical persons endowed of ancient palaces
mansions, and buildings belonging to their bene-
hoes, not only suffered them to go to decay, but
converted the materials to their own benefit
and conveyed away their goods and chattels to'
defeat their successors' claims for dilapidations (a).
5 Geo. IV. c. 84, s 26, which, after reciting that
transported felons in New South Wales, after
obtammg remissions, sometimes "by their industry
acquired property, in the enjoyment whereof it
was expedient to protect them," enacted that
every felon who received such remission should
be entitled to sue for the recovery of any property,
real or personal, acquired since his conviction —
was held not limited by the preamble to property
acqmred by his own exertions, but applied to aU
property howsoever acquired, as for instance by
inheritance (i). It has been more than once
decided that the preamble of the still unrepealed
37 Geo. III. c. 123, which refers only to the
mischiefs consequent on inciting men to sedition
andmutmy.and.on administering to them oaths
with this object, did not restrict the enacting part

196°' ^"* ""' *'''"'''°''°"''* (1828), 31 B. B. 666; 2Y.AJ.

(h) Oough V. Da«e.. 25 L. J. Ch. 677. and see Fleming v
Smith (1861), 12 Ir. C. L. B. 404.

DOES NOT AmCT WHAT 18 PLAIN. 85

. . °°* °^y ^th a view to mutinous or sa^,-

tXrrir ^"° -"'^ ^ View Tois-

and to ?r " °°* *° ^^*™y ^^'^ companions
and to workmen similarly binding them to seorecv
as members of an association for raising wiesbv
a stnke, or for not working under certain p3s faf
So the preamble of 14 Geo. Ill c 7S wl t
declared that an earlier Act for the eguS
0 bmlings and the prevention of fire in the ctes
Lr ""^ Westminster had been found i^
efficacious, and thai it would tend to the safeTv
of the inhabitants of those cities if other r^l^

to the metropolis s. 83 of that Act. which enacted
in general terms that in order t^ deter pel^s
from wJfuIly setting fire to their houses S a
-ewto ga^n to themselves the insura.ce Zl
the directors of insurance offices should I'

Property Act, 1875' ^^'^^J & Protection of

86

INTEHPBETATION OF BTATUTEB.

suspicious cases, lay out the insnranoe money in
reinstating the damaged buildings (a). This con-
struction, however, was further justified by the
circumstance that the section in question was a
re-enactment of a similar provision in the earUer
and repealed Act, with the significant omission of
the words "within the limits aforesaid," which
words remained in most of the other sections of
the later Act (6). Sec. 11, 21 Jac. I. c. 19(c),
which empowered bankruptcy commissioners to
dispose of goods which were in the possession
of the bankrupt, as reputed owner, with the real
owner's consent, was prefaced by a preamble which
recited the mischiefs of bankrupts "secretly con-
veying" their goods to other persons, and yet
remaining in the reputed ownership of them ; but
the enaotmenf was not confined to this particular
form of the mischief (rf).

3 Jac. I. 0. 10(«), which, after reciting that the
King's subjects were charged with conveying

(a) Exp. Oorely, 34 h. 3. Bank. 1, per Lord Westbury See

f!''r.^lrJ- •®"™"'' ^ ^'^ * ^- 353- The application of
H Geo. m. 0. 78, s. 83 to Scotland has been doubted, see
We.tmin.ter Fire Office v. Olasgou, Prorideut InveOmerU Co. (1888)
13 A. C. 699. '■

(h) As to the construction of s. 86, see Miugrme v. Pandeli,
[1919] 2 K. B. 43, C. A.

(c) Repealed by 6 Goo. IV. c. 16, s. 1.

(d) Man v. Cadell (1774), Cowp. 232.

(e) Repealed by 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 68, s. 44 and Sohed. IV.

DOES WOT AWBOT WHAT W PLAIN. 87

"felons and other malefactors and offenders
against the law" to jaU, punishable by imprison-
ment there, enacted that "every person" com-
imtted to the county jail by a justice "for any
offence or misdemeanor," should bear his own
ohaj-ges of conveyance, if he had property, and
that if he had not, they should be borne by the
parish where he was apprehended, was held not to
be confined by the preamble to offenders against
the ordinary law, but to apply to deserters from
the army (a). So, the preamble of 22 Geo. HI.
0. 75(6), which recited the mischief of granting
oolomal offices to persons who remained in England
and discharged the duties of their offices by deputy'
was not suffered to exclude judicial offices from
the general enacting part, which authorised the
Governor and Council to remove "any" office-
holder for misconduct; although the mention of
delegation in the preamble showed that the judicial
office was not there in contemplation (c)

2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 100 (rf), which after reciting
that the expense and inconvenience of suits for
the recovery of tithes ought to be prevented by

(<•) B. V. Pierce (18U), 16 B. B. 410; 3 M. & S 62

(6) Commonly attributed to Burke, but reaJIy an Act of Lord

bv tr,!, vT '!':"'■ ""*• ^'"- ^°- P- «"■ A"' <^-^^

by 57 & S8 Vict. c. 17, a. 1.

(c) JFVfl« V. ffipp. (1846), 6 Moo. P. 0. 379 ; see also Cloete v.
The Queen (1864), 8 Moo. P. 0. 484.

(<J) Bepealed as npuUic Act by 46 i 47 Viot. o. 49, s. 4.

88

IMTEBPEETATION OF STATUTES,

shortemng the time required for the valid establish-
ment of claims to exemption from tithes, enacted
that when a claim to tithes was made by a layman
a claim to exemption should be deemed oonclu-'

Z^.T'^'''' '' '"-' °^ non-paymenTt
Bixty years, gave nse to a celebrated legal con-
trover^, in which the effect of the preamble w«

except by provmg that the land in respect o
which they were claimed had formerly bSonged
to one of the great monasteries, and had E
;Zf fl'r"^^ the latter pioposition be"g
usuaUy established by such evidence of non
payment m modern times as sufflcr-d for founding
the mference of exemption. It was held by s2
of aie Judges (a), that the enactment was conZd
to clamps of this kind; and the preamble wasT
voked in support of this view. But it wrcon"
«dered by others(*), and finnlly decided^ h"
the Act apphed to all cases whatsoever; and that
Er °' ^°-P''y--t fo' ^ty 'years the
been monas- .0 or not. The enactment was free

coiiTir '^•■°- "'"^' '''■■ '-'^' ^>«-'>. -^

W By Lord Cottenham.

PBEAMBLB MAT BMTBIOT THE EKACTMENT. 89

from ambiguity, and contained no flexible ex
pr 8«on capable of diffe«nt meanings (T;^^

the more easy method of establishing exemSf
.l,r^r '^' P«amble is fomid more extensive

free from doubt. For instance. 3 W. & mT^
s. 3(c) which gave creditors an action of " debt "

to au honse an action for a breach of covenant.

(S) Sae SalkeU v. Jb»»,/<m, 1 Mao 4 G 249 • P h

(») Bepealed by 1 WiU. IV. c. 47 a 3
(d) WiUon V. jr„«i&y (1806), 7 East, 128.

M

niTBBPBRTATION OF STATCTBS.

but that it had often happened that after binding
themselves by bonds " and other specialities " they
devised away their property. The mention, it was
observed, of the action of debt in the enacting
part was almost an express exclusion of every
other (a). An Act which made it penal to dye
seeds so as to give them the appearance of seeds
of "another kind," could not be extended to
similar manipulations of old or inferior seeds, to
make them appear as new of the same species, by
a recital that the practice of adulterating seeds in
fraud of the Queen's subjects and the detriment
of agriculture required repression («). An Act
which required the trustees of a turnpike trust to
apply the monies which they received, first, in
paying "any interest which might from time to
time be owing," next, in keeping the road in
repair, and finaUy, in paying off the principal
sums due by the trust, was held not to authorise
the payment of arrears of interest; although this
enactment was prefaced by a preamble which
recited that arrears of interest as weU as principal
sums were due by the trust, and could not be paid
off unless further powers were granted (c). Such

(o) ttr Lord EUenborongh, 7 East, 138.

(6) frano, v. Xaa, (1878), 47 L. J. M. 0. 83; 41 & 43
Viot 0 17, was passed to overcome the difficulties experienced
m this case.

(c) Market Barborough v. ir««en-fii|r (1873), 42 L. J. M. C. 137 ;

PBEAMBLl MAT BWTBIOT THB EWACTMEUT. 91

an extension of the Act would have required very
clear words, since it would have had the effect of
throwiag on the ratepayers of one year a burden
properly belonging to those of another (a).

It has bebii sometimes said that the preamble
may extend, but cannot restrain the enacting part
of a statutf (i). But it would seem difficult to
support this oroposition («). Several of the oases
above cited might be referred to as instances of a
restricted meaning having been judiciaUy given to
an enactment by its preamble (rf). It could hardly
be doubted that a statute which, in general terms,
made it felony to alter a bill of exchange, would

?w. ta Sr*'' "^-^ '• '^"™"*'» «"*"-» ^-''.

(o) See Chap. X, See. n.
3^ L, J. 0. P. 132 ; pa- Turner L.J., Drumnond v Dn.™ J

0«r».r, V. //„ (1883), 8 App. Cas. 386, at p. 388
W A V. 6„^ (1789), 3 T. B. 133; SotteW v. Jo}„ut«,

26 L. J. M. C. 65; Bugle, y. a«ter B. Co.. 31 L. J. Ch 97

AS

INTBBPRBTATION OF RTATUTM.

be reitrained to fraudulent alterations, by a
preamble which recited that it wae desirable to
Mppress cheats and frauds eflTeoted by altering
bills (a). The function of the preamble is to
explain what is ambiguous in the enactment («),
and ,t may either restrain or extend it as best
Bnits the mtention.

But it is a settled rule that the preamble cannot
be made use of to control the enactments them-
selves when they are expressed in clear and un-
ambiguous terms (c).

The headings prefixed to sections or sets of
sections m some modem statutes are regarded as
preambles to those sections (d).

(.) B. y Bigg (1717). 3 P. Wm^ 484, .rg. For a r.^ of
c^ on th^^poi., ^ A«hbo.d-. Oruj:? P,«aU.g.^,^!

(i) Tk.P,opl. V. Vlica /««.. a,., 16 John^ N. Y. Bep 389

mX^ """^ '^' '■ **'* '^""" ^'^'^- "* "• «•

/"' ,iTt "' ''"**™ ^"* *«*«•'•« Co., [18991 A. 0 148
»tp.l86;68L.J.Q.B.392. ""J a- u. iM,

T *? ^ "t.^' ^''"" '• '^''" (^^)' 82 a. B. 710; 19
^ J. Ex. 264; Sl,r«c,lm,y v. Beathg. 34 L. J. C. P 328;
E^Jem Cou^Ue. B. O,. v. Marnaf.. 9 H. L. Cos. 41 ; Zotta« v.

t.« rJ!ii' r • ^"^ '• *•"' ' *PP- "'^^ »36 ; B«»«m v.
&«tt X««4w Tramway. Co., [1893] 2 Q. B. 304 ; ^ Brett LJ.,
A V. W (?«,,. Bi. 10 Q. B. D. 321; ^r Buckley L.J.,
Wert y.y^, 80 L. J. Ch. 687. 688. Omp. BroJkem v.
Iv^al Go,. Co., 26 L. J. Ch. 276 ; per Fi^weU L.J.. FUUier y.

A rCNDAMBltTAr, PBINOIPLB, OS

Rules made under an Act which prescribes that
they shaU be laid before P ! air-ent for a prescribed
number of days, dnrinp ^i>: -t, j^y:..\ they may be
wmuUed by a resolutic- . ' .^l.e, l.u. >, but that
If not so annuUed the. h,c fc„ L of tU: me effect
aaifcontainedinth. .', .„ i an,. ',- mdiciaUy
noticed, must be tioatad o.- aU pur^oies of con-
struction or obligatior, o. , tr>,n,vis9, exactly as if
they were in the Act. Jf th. ■ i. a conflict
between one of these rul. -nd a section of the
Act, It must be dealt with in the same spirit as a
conflict between two actions of the Act should be
dealt with. If reoonoiUation is impossible, the
subordinate provision must give way, and probably
the rule would be treated as subordinate to the
section (a).

In a word, then, it is to be taken as a funda-
mental principle, standing, as it were, at the
threshold of the whole subject of inteipretation,
that the plain intention of the Legislature, as
expressed by the language employed, is invariably
to be accepted and carried into effect, whatever
may be the opinion of the judicial interpreter of

Birhnk^ Corporation, 119072 1 K. B.. at p. 218 ; nnionS.S.ao
'fJf'«>Z«daHdy.MelboHrn,Oommu«oMr,(imi),53h J P C
69 ; 9 App. Oa8. 365. As to Marginal Notes, see sup. p. 76 "

{a] Per Lord Hersohell L.C.. Imtituto of PalcU Ageui, y
'"d'l'ood, [1894] A. 0.. at p. 360.

94

INTBBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

Its wisdom or justice. If the language admits of
no doubt or secondary meaning, it is simply to be
obeyed If ,t admits of more than one oonstruo-
faon, the true meaning is to be sought, not on the
wide sea of surmise and speculation, bnt "from
such conjectures as are drawn from the words
alone, or something contained in them " (a) ; that
IS. from the context viewed by such light as its
history may throw upon it, and construed with
the help of certain general principles, and under
the influence of certain presumptions as to what
the Legislature does or does not generally intend.
But the language of a statute must not be strained
morder to make it apply to a case to which it
does not legitimately, in its terms, apply, on
account of the supposed intention of the Legis-
lature and the th.ory that that supposed intention
can only be effectuaUy carried out by giving to

bear's ' ""'"^"^ ""^'^ '^'^ ^° °°* ""'^"^""^

CHAPTER II.

SECTION i.-woKi,s ukbkbstooo .coobbzko to xhk

SUBJECT MATTEB.

ahJT.r''*' °^ " ''"'"*«• ^^^'^ tl'ere is a doubt
about their meaning, are to be understood in tt
sense m which they best harmonise with til
subject of the enactment and the bjel whL\

%..o,c.propriet;VC;r^^^

oTwhr^b:;^:,:^?'.^'^ ''- --^-

attained (A) It Tnot bJ 1 "'''''" *° ^
\ /■ ii IS not because the words nf =

B a^te, or the words of any document. Cd inle
sense. Grammatically they may cover if • LI

W Snp. pp. 39, 40.

(6) P«r Cur., B. V. ffa« (1822) 1 B & P i^fi r.

B- * P. b. a. . 16; Puff L. jj. b. s;-, ij^'a^- ^^«^ ««"• "o

86

HrrEKPBBTATION OF STATCTM.

d "■ °"^""^ ««°se in the English

Xfr, " ''^^^' ^''>- ^^" ^« evident enoth

mtrt " - °' '' ^°"^ "^^'J' h''^ two totSy
different meanings. The Act of Ed. Ill jZ

Act w.= f! ' '^®" *^** *he object of the

ElriT. P''"'"^* ecolesiastios from liv^gt

0 sf T r, f ^^'""''^ '^''*' 1«24, 6 Geo. IV.

object a beggar ^,C :': Zm^uIT^

e piracy of the high seas with the " riraov "
.of copynght; or to give, in one branch of ZIL
the meamng which would belong, in anotherTo'

2^«*er (1883),

(d) Mather, v. Pen/old, [1915] 1 K. B. 314.

SITBJltCT MATTJSB TO BE 0ON8IDBBBD. 97

2!" Tf u °f ^ ^ P'^''"' •'^ * «'»'«'«««''' should
tent to dispose by will of a continuing interest in
bviofJ*''*"; *'^ "'""P^*-''^ -'-ded wS
pe«ona? • "'"*'^ ^'""^ °' fr-^°- f--
estate of :nhentance which was capable of dispos "
ion by wall („). The Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847
did not, by calling the debt due for gas " rent ■•'

rr;;;trT8?j ''t'f ^^f-^^^ -^^^^

nf Zr , ' ' ^^^ regulated the power

' int -Td " ^t""*^ " °' "^'^^ P^-^'^ to whim
rent « due " by the bankrupt (A). The Mutiny

^■1 'II " T- "■');■ ''■ '"'^'^ "y «i * S2 Vict c. 8,

■ ^J. ^J , vl..O. V. ffalleti (1857). 27 L T Vr «q a ^
judgment being ..&,„,. 5,^„,,. v l/tn 2p^D 276 '° "
^-. U Q. B. D. 627; E.,. Ct-w/iTq B D 357 ?

L J. Q. B. 556 ; S<Uar,a„ v. lfa„^ (1891), 60 L J Q B B'U
Be Alexatuler, [18921 10 B 91 fi d -'• "" '^^ J- «■ B. 624 ;
L I O B on7 J „ ^' ^ ' *° ^'""eod (1892) 62

(i ?2 & 'f = .f « f;"*~^%^°"«. [1895J 1 Q. B. 609.

(<.) 32 & 33 V.ct. 0. 71, s. 34 ; fl,«, E^p., 6 Ch D 63 fi

I^-^^^a. 780, 56 U. 609, 58 Id. 219. As'to wL, .t?'!'

7

k [ii>^

98

nrTERPBBTATION OF STATUTBS.

Acts which exempt soldiers from the payment of
toUs over " bridges " would not carry the exemp-
tion to a steam ferry boat, because it is oaUed a
floating bridge (a). The enactment which pro-
hibited parish officials from being concerned in
contracts for supplying goods, materials or pro-
visions "for the use of the workhouse," meant
" for the use of the persons in the workhouse,"
and therefore did not apply to a contract for the
supply of materials for the repair of the buUd-
ing(A). This is too plain to need further illustra-
tion.

In dealing with matters relating to the general
public, statutes are presumed to use words in their
popular sense; tit! loquitur vulgus{e). But when
dealing with particulai- businesses or transactions,
words are presumed to be used with the particular
meaning in which they are used and understood
in the particular business in question (</) ; that

Badcoch y. Bunt (1888), 22 Q. B.D. 145; Fhyd v. Lyon. (1897),
66 L. J. Ch. 350; fl«/e« v. Sharman, [1901] 2 I. B. 433, 439.

(o) Ward V. Gray (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 146.

(6) 55 Goo. III. 0. 137, s. 6; repealed in part as to 9. 6 by
31 & 82 Viet. 0. 122, b. o40 ; Borier v. Waite, 1 A. & E 514 •
Comp. 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. ', s 8. 77, cited inf. p. 298.

(c) The Fmilier, 34 L. J. P. M. & A. 27, per Dr. Lushington.
See ex. gr. Pittt v. Millar, L. E. 9 Q. B. 380.

id) Pir Lord Esher M.R., Unmn v. Eaiison, [1891] 2 Q B
119 and The Dunelm, 9 P. D. 171; Grot. b. 2, o. 16, 8. 3;
Vattel, b. 2, s. 276 ; /.rami v. Stevetu, 4 T. R. 462, pfr Lord
Kenyon ; Marrall v. Sniton (1844), 60 R. R. 434 ; 14 L. J. Ch.

V^OBM CONWBUED IN POPCLAr sbNSE. 99

asylum for omh-nr/M ^ extending to an
oonZantto Sf I ^' ""^"^ ^* '^PP^'^^^ "'ore
wldeTmeairtSn" 0°' ''^-r.*" «^^« ^* ''^^^

266 ; Z)oe v. Jeuon, 21 B R 1 ■ n r,

V. Wen,^,, (1858), H Moore PC 543 *•■ "'*' ^'™»'

(6) 6'ofcA„ter V. Keu,ne!,, 36 L. J. Ex 172 !,„<.»„
»*«ter, 4 B. & Aid 504 W„. ■ ., '^'''- ^^ B. v. Man-
houao." see itfat, cS-t i! T'^ '"''■»'™<=«0'> of ■. Alms-
73 L. J. K. B 806 '''^"'""' t^^^^J ^ K. B. 645 ;

'>™.fert ft„o« V. Lanca.t>r Union, 107 L. T. 020. '

I' ! . I

100

INTEBPBETATIOK OF 8TATUTM.

So the power given in the Highway Act, 1835. to
a surveyor to " lop " trees growing near a highway,
was oonstmed in the popular sense as confined to
cutting off lateral branches, and not extending to
" topping •• (a). An Act which privileged a bank-
rupt from arrest for "debt" was. on the same
principle, extended to arrests for non-payment of
money ordered to be paid by an order of the
Court of Chancery, or by a rule of a Common
Law Court, though technically not constituting a
debt (b) ■ and the provision of the repealed s. 18 (8),

(a) 5 & 6 Wm. IV. 0. 50, s. 65; Ur«in v. Han^ [1891] 2
Q. B 115 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. 531. As to what wUl j^yLoial
of a fence under 6 & 6 WiU. IV. o. 60, s. 69. see Mlvan. v. Oakh,
1 Oar. i K. 126. As to when the ooonpier of land is under no'

?Xi KT52a""''' '" " "'"""**""'• "^ ""^ " ^™^'

(i) By s. 7 of 4 4 5 Geo. V. c. 59 (The Bankruptoy Act,
1914), protection is given to the property and parson of a debtor
subsequently to the malrinj of a receiving otder. The foUowing
cases are Ulustrative of protection afforded under repealed
Acts m cases where the liability was not tochnioaUya debt-
M-W,'Ma,,„, Exp. (1803). 1 Sch. & Lef. 169, attachment for
coDtompt; B. v. mu,ard. (1829), 9 B. & C. 652, attachment
under rule of Court ; S. v. i)«»„« (1813), 2 M. & 8. 201, attach-

nsfifi/T.rT^'T'" °' """''■' »™'^' -^-^ '■ ^-"'"
(1866), 35 L. J. C. P. 285, attachment out of Chancery. Cmp

Ba^ro/l .MiicMl (1867), L. B. 9 Q. B. 549, no privUege und^^

43 EUz c. 2, s. 7 ; Lro^r v. Beyer (1879), 13 Ch. D. 242, refusal

to grant w„t of „. exeat regno; PattereoH v. Pattereon (1870)

l^- R. - P. A D. 189, bankruptoy of co-respondent; Bates v.

101

to themfrom the dZoTJ,^ ^' '^^ " ^^^^' " due
^ae held to.^yZ^^'°^''^^'^b<^^?toy.
which would Klle7;°''*-«-* "'*''^*-'

constraed in their popu^l^'rr-"^^^^
meaning. Thus, when ^ "" *^"' *'"*"''<"*'
Will. IV. 0 541 IhoT ''''' ^'""'*«d (5 & 6

between pe^oni wftlr"',f f ^''^^ ««^«''«'*ed
not be annuU d foTtha, 0^'''^', '^^^«^ ^^'"'^d
pronounced in a su t tin «'; "°'^^« ^-^ ««°*«nce

^eld that this lariXtr"'/^ " ""
a popular and not techr,- J understood in

was '• depend^. '':f°l««"«V"' *'"* ^ «"*

been issued ^^ aI„ ?. "' *^^ ''^*»«''n had

VA Again, "monopoly valn« " ,v

i'otet (1888), 14 P D 17 . . '°

AoU869.f„n,orde;tofiidL'^tT I'" " * <" "'"'o™
5<-"fc» (1876), « L. J. QBeTs'^''"'^'^ «■»»'«; -R-^fcyv.

exist, where the debt to be set off I %"* ' "' " ^' °ff" ^'y
"'«- /«»«v. no„^(,'^';°^'^f--»We by actio.. Sel

1^ '^ ^— - '^XvreVreJs

*'. [18951 1 Ch, 267 '■ ""P"- ''™- 351 ; ^'•"■y- «««,
**'^""''''J"'-«'*'.V,73L.J.K.B.

102

tNTEKPBKTATIUN OF STATUTES.

«• 14 (1) of the Lioenmng Consolidation Act,
1910, means " capital monopoly value " and is a
lump sum to be definitely fixed upon the grant
of the justices' licence (a).

i'he payment of a fixed sum " in each and every
cal*, lar month " is the payment of an annual
8J .; vithin the meaning of the Annuity Act, 1863,
u'ri is therefore subject to Income Tax (ft).

For the purposes of s. 42 of the Naval Prize
Act, 1864 (27 & 28 Vict. c. 26), only such of His
Majesty's vessels " as are actually present at the
taking or destroying " of an enemy's ships are
entitled to participate in the prize bounty although
other ships may have helped in the fight (c).
Moreover, such bounty being purely a naval
reward, if the taking or destroying of an enemy's
ships results from the combined efforts of His
Majesty's sea and land forces no award of bounty

378; aod a written claim to goods taken in election, served
on a sheriff, is a "proceeding instituted" witUn s. 2, Manied
Women 8 Property Act, 1893 (56 & 67 Vict. o. 63): Nmn v
Ts.on. [1901] 2 K. B. 487. See also Hood Barr, v. Btriot ri8971
A. C. 177 ; Moran v. PUce, [1896] P. 214.

(o) Rex V. Sunderland Ctutomt (1914), 83 L. J. K B 55S ■
Sex V. Pilfield, [1919] 2 K. B. 249.

(J) Cooper, In re (1918), 119 L. T. 303.

(c) FalUand leland. Battle, In re H.MJ. Canopu,, Exp. (1917),
86 L. J. P 47. See also The Carmania (1916), 32 T. L. B 395 '
The Sgdney, [1916] P 300; The Konigeberg, [1917^ p. 174;'
ff..W. Submarine Venel E 14, fl9171 P. gg.

WORDS COMTBITBD 1» KPVLAJ, BEVM. 103

^I'l.,'"'^'^''^- ^"^ ^ «ke manner where

m«»,v t." ' ®" ^®'^* frequent ohanges of

X/ Pf^^'^'P" -»"" 1862, it was held that
Zmrl """r'^'"' ^w "formed," within s. 4
Compames Act, 1862, before the passing of the

Wore i- t ?^ ''^'"^ ""^^^^^^-i *!"« Court

to rive til " ""^ "''"*"'«''* "- "preferred."
lutforiJ? ^'""r*" '"'^*''' '^'^ ''^W to conf;,
authonty to award them to the judge, who tried

Kfr* ''• ^r ^"-^ even aft'erulremrv j

mZ5 tL a\"°'' "P-^^'ed" would have

Tf o«« . ".*. ''"«''*°'y ^^ " '"«e "majority
0^ oases road mdiotments being rarely tried at

WhertlT '* ."''"' *'^y "« " preferred "(.t
Where judgment was "recovered" for £500 on a

>'• //«««.«. L. B. 3 Q. B. 216 ; 37 L. ,T. M. c 37 ' ■"■

(") i'er Coisridge J., 3 g. B. 906.

104

IirrKBPBBTATION OP gTATimsa

warrant of attorney to seonre an annuity of XSO,
of which only jE16 were due, it was held that the
defendant was protected from arrest by the enact-
ment that no person should be taken in execution
on a judgment '< where the sum recovered does
not exceed £20." Though technically the judg-
ment was " recovered " for the larger sum, the
sum really recovered was under £W{a). The
Railway Clauses Consolidation Act, 1846, which,
while giving companies power to take land for
temporary purposes, provided that they should not
be exempted from " an action " for nuisance or
other injury, was construed as not limited to what
were technically << actions," but included aU pro-
ceedings whether at law or in equity (6). Where
the Quarter Sessions were empowered to order
" the party against whom an appeal was decided,"
to pay the costs of the successful party ; it was
held that the prosecutor who had procured the
conviction successfully appealed against, was for
this purpose the party appealed against, though

(a) 7 & 8 Viot. 0. 96, 8. 87, repealed by 32 & 33 Viet. o. 83,
». 20 and Schedule, see under repealed Act; /oAimoi. v. Harri,.
24 h. J. 0. P. 40.

(b)t&9 Viot. 0. 20, 8. 32; Fenaiek v. Ea.t London S. Co
(187c,), L. E. 20 Eq. 544 ; 44 L. J. Oh. 602. ■• Action " as used
in 8. 1, Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893, has been
simUarly construed : Harrop v. Omll (Mayor), [1898] 1 Ch.
625; 67 L. J. Oh. 347; and see Fielden v. Morley Corp. (1900),
69 L. J. Oh. 314, A.C.

WOHM COII8TO0BD IS POPUUIB SKKSB. 106

he was not so on the record, or formaUy, nor even
by being served with notice of the appeal (a).

appealed agamst, though the Act required that
the notice of appeal should be served on them.
Even the word " party " has received the sense in
which It IS sometimes vulgarly used, of "person."
when It 18 plain that ParUament so intended it •
M m the repealed Chancery Amendment Act of
1862, which enacted that any " party" who made
an affidavit in a suit should be liable to cross-
examination (J). 17 Geo. III. 0. 26(c), which,
after requiring the registration of annuities, to
check, as the preamble states, the pernicious
practice of raising money by the sale of life
annuities, except annuities charged on lands
whereof the grantor is "seised in fee simple or
fee tail m possession," was construed as including
m this exception a person who was tenant for life
with a general power of appointment ; for such a
person, though not technically a tenant in fee
simple. IS substantially so. since he can dispose
of the property absolutely (d). Although the word

(<.) B. V ffon/., 9 L. J. M. C. 109; 36 E. B. 407 ; and see
B^. V. London J J., [1895] 1 Q. B. 616, at p. 631 ; 64 L. J. M. C.

^V, 15 & 16 Viot. 0. 86, s. 40; il. Quarts Hill Co., 21 Ch. D.

(') Bepealed by 8. h. R. 1861.

[i) BaUey V. Hale, (1797). 7 T. R. 194; ifc^/e. v. «.,„,■

Moocopy REsoiurnN test chart

(ANSI ond ISO TEST CHART No. 2)

1.25

Hi
tii

,|^

1^

t33

1^

u

Li

ks,

m

I

1.8

mm,i^

^ y^PPLIED IIVHOE In,

^

1653 East Mam Streei
Hochrsler. New Yo'li 1*609
(?16) *a2 - 0300 - Pnono
(?r6) 2B8 - 5989 - fo.

lOfi

INTERFBETATION OK STA1VTF.S.

• li. c. dd (repealed by 4 Geo IV n 7fi\
which declared void thn mo. • ! ^'•

out the consenrof fh ^^' "^ "minors with-

was 1^/0 , ■■ P'^'"*''' ''^''•''«* tl^eir will,

t"Sl.°8^ "-"'""'■ "^'^ '»>'.% (.37.), .,

(«) .8. V. BeUm, Burr. S O 1S7 • j>
8 Q. B 410- P „ w J ,' ' "• ■^'"""•S'iaui C1846i

(1873) rs:? ; ^-^tT^-'p^- ^- ^'^^ ^'"^ '™*
568. ''• ^x. 31 , D„„„ V j^.^_ ^ g y jj ^

seo also 8 e1 vH « 2 I" f'^f'^^''''^- ^ ^- J- M. C. 197 ;
W BepealedbySGeo IV i 3Tsr'°"°"'"°''l«''«)-

WOHDS CONSTRUED ,K popular „.^,, j^^

^jvm by that term, viz., common illuminating
WJiere a statute applied to the United Kingdom,

(o) Smith, Be, [18961 3 Ch 690 <J^ i,
f 1891] 1 Ch. 801. ^' ''°''*^"' "*« V. B<.i,fe,„.

(*) ^.-e. V. Bailey (1847), 17 L J Pr Q i, •,
(1849), 18 L. J. Q. B. 115. ' ^' ■®"'''* ^- ff""-""

(c) Two hundred cheets of tea 9 Wheaf -iqn
W«M V. Knight. 2 Q B D SSn .. T f .. ' °°* "''° " ^^•"
'■ Grain," ol; v. r„t fSiVl ct' ^^f ;^- ''"*^' ^P'

W Stanley v. ItJ™ zlS a868 ' ^ ^^ ^^ * ^^ "'«■

carry on the business of » "J ^ ^ "ovenant not to

*«" V. Fenni.^,. 51 L. J. Ch. 166 ^''^ ^"^■""'^

108

INTEBPBETATION OF STATITTES.

and the technical meaning of words differed in the
oe taJsen in its popular sense (a).

passedM ;''''' ?'''' *^'y ""'^ -b^'^ i' was
wS TV ■ fn' '°'*"'''^' " P"™'« Act (6 & 7

should I ^7 .^'' ^'''''y'' C°"*« °f Law"
should be brought against certain shipowners

apply to proceedings in the Admiralty Division of

passed, the Admiralty Court was not called and
was not. one of His Majesty's Courts, nor wer
the proceedings there called an action (,■

And the same rule has been applied in the more
rec nt caseof " n.5„.^.. i„ ,hich it washed
that the SIX months' limitation prescribed by 56 & 57

Pe^el, [1891] A 0 531 LT'rT "^^ '^''»"'"---' v.

A C ^7?.' f ' T " '^''*'''''''' '' «• ^- D- 2*2; [1891
«««<; V. Lincoln (Bp.), sup p 43 -• ^°^- "' P' ^^^ '

tar this applies to new things, see p. 144.

WOllDS HKSTRIOTBD TO THE MATTER. 109

A^l'- ^,1 ^^'/' ^ ^"^ ^°^^ "ot apply to au
Admiralty dctiou In rem (a).

lu a Consolidation Act (see sup. p. 48) it wiU
instance, the provision in the Sheriffs Act 188?

rZ ^"'™ ^°' ^'^ ^°«"' Wlie« only to

a ests on mesne process or Crown' debts, Lh
being the construction given to the original
enactment, 32 Geo. II. c. 28 (b). ^

But it is in the interpretation of general words

nd phrases that the principle of strfctly a iXg

he meaning to the particular subject matt!if

■eerence to which the words are used, finds iS

at 7T' *PP^'""'«°''- However wide in the
abstract hey are more or less elastic, and admit

It^r X,"' "^'^^^°" *° ^'^" ^'^ -'"i-^
matter While expressing truly enough all hat

the Legislature intended, they frequertly express

(«) [1907] P. 137; see also Mitchell v. Aberdeen In^ra
Committee, Ct. Sess. (So.) (1918) W C fe iJrt'T ^

W. .„. .^,„^, ^^- C^^^^U KB. S C. f" "^

C f S« ; ; " '" ^'"^' '■ ^«''™"'. [1893] 2 cL 1

349 r /" ''"^ ^^'^'"■' *"'•'* -■ «"*'■. [18911 AC

no

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

more ,n theu hteral meaning and natural force-

wh ch best suits the scope and object of the
statu e w,hout extending to ground' foreign to
the intention. It is, therefore, a canon of fnter!

n^tetl^V" "°''^' '' *^^^ '^ «-«-' -1
fitness of the niatter(4 They are to be construed
as particular if the intention be particular (M •

ence to the subject matter in the mind of the
Legislature, and limited to it.

Thus enactments which related to "persons"
would be variously understood, according to the
c rcumstances under which they were used, as in!

limSt" ""' "t"""^ corporations (.); and as
limited to persons born in the King's aUegiance,

(a) Bao. Max. 10.

«-;=. ^„*„ (1390,. 15 A. am: eo l. j. J b S' ' ^''

W B.V. Gardner. Co.p. 79; S. v. York. 6 A. & E. 419-
p. "■ ^"":''f ""^ '^''•. W. 645; Bao. Stat. Use., 43 57 ^
|*7~"" 50.. V. Lonaon Su^l, As«.., 5 App. Cas 8 7 .'
St Leonardo v. J-ranWw. 3 C P n q77- - \,r I. '

^»^.^.^.^,^.9oi3.-^-So:rr5:;s

ont! X 7 ' "'■^""''^ °'- "'■-»n>orate. ■■ unC the
.onteiry ,„tent.on appears." See also Stroud's .Tud. Diet, and
Supplement, tit. " Person."

W08IW UKHTRICTED TO THE MATTER. lU

lll'v V°^"* '''° *" ^"^'«"«" """"'"y within
he British domu.on8(a), or in British ships on
he high seas (6>, or (the meaning in prize and

commercial law) only persons domiciled in those

dommions(.). Under the Licensing Act" 1872
no person" may sell intoxicating liquor with!

out a license, and "any person" selling withont

held that the sale prohibited was restricted to a
saJe by a person who ought to be licensed, and
did not apply to a servant who sold liquor, the
property of his master, by his master's orders (rf)
In a repealed Act(«) which provided for the
recovery of wages by "persons belonging to a
ship, this expression would obviously be confined
to persons employed in its service on board; while
m one which related to the salvage of "persons be!
longing to the ship," it would as obviouSy inoLdJ

(«) C^rteen; Ca.e. Hob. 270; Nga Hoog v. B 7 Cox im ■
(h) Davidson v. Hill, [1901] 2 K. B 606

a .on) Act, 1910 WM,an„on y. Norri. (1899), 68 L. J. Q B
^1, Boyle V. Smith, [1906] 1 K B 432 £!=! i m
Uttle«cod, [1916] 1 K. B. 272. *''" ^*"""' ^•

Scll.'L* '' '"'"• '- ''• ™^'""' 'y '' * «« Vict c. GO,

112

INTEnPIiKTATION OF STATUTES.

passengers as well as orew (a). The 13 Eliz. o. 5
s. 1, which made roid, as against creditors, all
vo untary ahenation of "goods," was held to a^ply
only to such goods as were liable to be taken in
execution ; as the object of the Act was to pr"

therlt T"""/ '^'^ ''^'"^ ^'^'^'^"-'^ from
he reach of creditors: consequently, the word

as long as these were not subject to execution (b)

the reputed ownershipclauses of former bankrnptcy

faJl withm the specific object of the Legislature
which was to protect creditors against being
deceived by an apparent ownership of propertyrf
A bungalow constructed of wood and corru/a e I
iron erected on a piece pf land for the pu^'se tl

(t) DuWo. V. ZHi/en. (1790), 1 R R lig. pj ' .,,

12 A & E '-.qfi TO .,_ . «. it. Ml, Stmt V. IViDMa/.,

»«; n J """'^ ""'«' ''«'^ "<>' ^"Wn the statute

see De»n2,, Tnslee of, ri9191 1 K R sao n »i»tute,

ri9161 2 rh .^ii /' L^aiyj 1 K. B, 583 ; Pearee r. Bnlleel,
tl916J 2 Ch. 544 ; see herein 1 & 2 Viot. c. 110, s 12

9ftH /; ^°'°'™'"=y' '"'"'l'- ■!?» Jlfwnrfi,^, 29 L. J Ch
288, and B. v. Sarfrf?er,' Co., 10 H. L. Cas. 404

(d) As to goods in possession, order or disposition of a
0 59.738^ "^ ^^"■^^"'^ ^'"' ''''■ - ^^ *^ «eo V^

WOBM RMTBICTBD TO THE MATTER. ,13

words as „80d Ts SV^, T""?^ °^ *^°"

Act, 1894 ,„^ i ^^^^"^•'^o'l'JonEnildiiig
^i-i, iotf4, and does not reanim « u„« •

2 ?a 7*5^ !':' "•;:; ^r'/- '• ^- ^""■^*-^" ^^««*j

L. J. K. B. 244 *■ '^"'""""»' «'■»'-•' V. i<-nrf<,„ C a, 71

SSitS:f:-J;,5-;f--]^K.B.7n.

^^^ •>■ p. D. & A. 55; 3oe also n. Pp.,„„ (ig^^). 81 L. J P.
I.S.

8

114

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

bankruptcy and entitled to prove under it (a) ; and
the statute which makes it a criminal offence for
any member of a " co-partnership " to embezzle
the moneys belonging to it, has been held not to
apply to the case of an association having for its
object, not the acqui ition of gain, but the spiritual
and mental improvement of its members (ft).

The complex term " inhabitant " may be cited
as having frequently furnished illustration of this
adaptation of the meaning to what appears to
suit most exactly the object of the Act. In the
abstract, the word would include every human
being dwelling in the place spoken of. A right of
way over a field to the parish church granted to
the " inhabitants " of a parish would include every
person in the parish (<;). But wher- the object
of an Act was to impose a pecuniary burden in
respect of property in the locality (as in t'.e case

(o) Grace v. Bhhop, 26 L. J. Bi. 68; He Pola, ' 36 L J
Bank. 19. Under b. 48, Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (repealed by
4 & 6 Geo. V. 0. 59, and re-enaoted by s. 44 of that Act, as to

d2 T^L. B. 661 ; Booker, In re, [1916] W. N. 293. See Pah.
Be, Bead. Exp. (1896), 66 L. J. Q. B. 71 ; Blackpool Motor Car
Co., In re, [1901] 1 Ch. 77.

(b) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116, s. 1 ; iJ, v. BoUon (1885), 65 L. J,

, ,?'f t .r""*' ^- "■ ^''"*''"'' fl^^*] 1 «■ B- 548. Sec. 1
of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 116 is repealed by 6 & 7 Geo. V. c. 50 s 48

(c) B. V. Ma,hUer (1837). 6 L. J. K. B. 121 ; 6 A. & E IBs'
per Littledale J. See also B. v. Davie (1837), 6 A. & E 374 '

W0R„8 BK8TB.CTBD «, TIIK MATTEU. 115

Of tho Statute of Br'i..,,s, 23 Hen VI IT n ,-

construed as comprising all holders of lands or
houses m the locality, whether resident or not
and cornorate bodies as weU as individuals but

ISStT'r '^^""^ ^'•° ^'^^ "^'^

SnT^ , ' ■'"'"' '"°^ ''^ ««^''»"t«; " being

beW no 1 'T',?'"' " *° ^"^ «^«^ '"^babitan?
being no householder, and who could not be <^

r„t TT •^°'^-i'«y-»t, and therefo e SgS:
jmprobable that the Legislature intended to'Z

On the other hand, where the object is to
•mpoBe the performance of a person se^c^

probably be construed as not comprising either
corporate bodies or non-resident proprietors Thus
it was held that a person who occupied premises'
;n one parish and carried on his business i^~

«" n " •';' 1"? ''' ^-"-^-^--^ - another!
as to be bound to serve as its constable (.). So

Bayley J. ^' *■ "• ■*»•'* C""^,, 4 B. & C. 958, per

W -B. V. Adlard, i B & C, <170 a i

. 4 B. 4. O. 772. See also fi. v. SkhoUon, U

116

INTKBPRKTATION or CTATUTM.

0^ tf Ji'»''?l!""?'' *'•« ••"P""'""" of a rate
on all who "inhabited or oooupied " any land or

ha°Z' Tt !'' appointment of a number 07" in
fh« T 'f *"'"*°* '^' ""'''' '■» held to throw
locahty (a). But here the word " occupied " would
suggest a meaning for " inhabitants " dS fnct f oL

SL^! ''"" °^'"''«''™«n'. i« an "inhabited
dwelling-house and assessable to inhabited house

^-^f^' '"'°*^" '""'°'°8 ^°"''^ ^^ given to the

Ze .7'Tr' ''''"' ''^^ "^J""* ^-« t° •leter!
mine the se tloment of a pauper, or the qualifica-

»ui, or resident m the place in which h.,
usuaUy sleeps (.). What amounts to inhabUanoy

(o) Donne v. Jlfartjr (1828), 8 B. & C 62
k/b. 6*46* " '^''"' "■ "*■ "• ' '• ^'"*'* "• ■"""'"^ (1««). 73 L. J.
(^) ». Jtfa,i, V. Bad,/,:/r«. I Stra. 60, ^.r Parker CJ.; R v

^•M * ?,":■ T °' '"'' '"^ ^- '""V""'' " East. 176 ^ V
PW i ^- * ^'''- ^^*- -°"" V. fori. 3 C P D 73
^ord V. Dre., 6 0. P. D. 59; mU,j v. «,a:j, 4 Ex D li

mode/' /"•*"■ ' ^"'- "'- ^ ^-1 Hard;icke L.C !„;
modern deepens o. this point, see Oi. Yar«ou,i V.ion v.
Bey Green Un,on (1907), 97 L. T. 440; Te.M.ury Union v.
Vpton-on-Severn Union (1913), 83 L. J. K. B. 37; DaJntry Union
V. Coventry Union (1917), 86 L. J. K. B. 276.

""•l. on the other ,rir'' ""\ °'""'*''"*« '''
- » place, iu thi S tr "" """'""'^
-nch absence fron, it ( )'. 'Zit ZIT' ^"^
residence for a certain f.„,. . , "^ ^''* '«q"iws
tion.it would beT;l7,:' ^«-t. a« a qualifica-
P-esence in the place rT'j^^^^^^^ -*-' "<>%
as was heW in th« „ , *' '"°e indispensable ;
8titutin« theln °°'"**"«'*'°'' of the Act con
OxfoSf,/'' congregation of the Universit; Jf

Jr uttt; :: ?-- -^ '°

-t mely that he ZuH 1 :ir'" ?* "
enactment which reonir!! ? *^*' "^ ^ *^^
•'""place 0/ abode ■.";,'?'"'" *° ^^°-«
;--s; or a witne L to a b ilTT "^'"^ »•«

-;^--.escHptio;rhi:::^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

O^rge',, 1,1. 47 g ■ »" L,- J. C. P. 45; Ha,ul v. «.

^- P"'-™, 87 B. B. 869- S;J "-i""''- ^"^^ ^W; McDougJ

"^*v.O./„.(v.C.)(I872,-Zb •q.B47,

118

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

residence." In these oases it has been held
considenngthe object which the Legislature hai
m ^new, that the place of business constituted the
abode or residence intended (a). But in general
the place of business of a person would not be

I'rt'iT!^" "P^*"" °^ abode '•(*). It has
b n held to b. his " address " as a witness to a
bil of sale under ss. 8-9 and schedule of the BiUs of
Sale Act, 1882(c); but not to be his "address"
for indorsement on a writ as plaintiff in an
action (d).

A clerk or servant does not " canyon business "
m the place where he is employed, within the
meaning of ^cts giving jurisdiction to County and
other Courts over persons who dweU or carry on
business within their limits (.); but the words
would receive a wider meaning when the object
of the enactment had reference to the distribu-

(o) Thorp V. Srome (1867), L. B. 2 H L 220

n'^i^'^.^-J- "'""^'"'^- 21 L. J. Q. B. 153. See also B. v
De,gMon, 13 L. J. Q. B. 241 ; B. v. Coward, 20 L. J. Q B 359'

L ^1 cl *25l ^'f % ''L *™""™' " '^'^'"•'■' (1892), 61

in re (1916), 85 L. J. (K. B.) 393.

(d) Eules of S. C. Order IV. r. 1 ; Stay v. Bee.. 24 Q. B. D.

2* E 497 ''™"'°'' ■"■ '■ '^'^' ''''• =^*«"'»- [19011

(e) Grahmu v. Lvmu, 22 Q. B. D. 1 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. 117, 0. A.

WORDS RESTRICTED TO THE MATTER. 119

Under the provisions of the County Courts Act
wboh gave the Superior Courts coici^^j^l'
Motion when the parties dwelt more than Ctv
nules apart, the principal office of a railway com
pany wasit8dwelling(*); but not its other oSs
or Btatzons(c). But the manufactory or shoT
where the business is substantiallyl^iedT;
and not its registered office, is the dwelling, withii^
he meaning of the same provision, of f m^
facturing company(rf). For fiscal purposera
corporation is regarded as residing w3 ^he
govenmg body carries on the supreme man4e.
ment, though the scene of its operations Id
sources of profit, and even the majority of Se
sh^eholders, are out of the country! and' though
It has a foreign domicil and is registered abroad (e).

(c) ShieU V. 0. N. R. Co. (1861), 30 L J O B ill . n

'1 1 '"■ ^- '"■ (^««')- '' ^- i Q B 3ia ''' ' ^"^ '■

id) Keymham v. Baker (1864) 33 L T P, ai o
Mer,..ia PUr Co. .. Cooper, 35 L J. Q B « " ""

(«) Ifewbf V. Colt', Arm Co.. L. E 7 O R QQO n- •
C^P'oir^E.om.U (1889). 23 Q. B. D. Slf; 58 W Q bTo;'
C'>non Iron Co. v. Machren. 5 H. L. oj m S^'fa
Alexander, h. E. 10 Ex. 20. ^ ^•"''- ^-

120

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

I : 1 1:

- which it wastrt/?r/^''?%(*)
Merchants who actJ^ f °°^°'' ^^"^ "f

their principals as to cTnstitutf «« '° ''^''''''*
of a writ as valid serJc^n th« "^°" *^''"

Again, the word CupS"t ^"""^P'^^'
meanings, varvin. ZT^ \»"««'eived different

•'occupier"of hem 11 . f P''«°'*«e« i« the

offioer who is in acln, * '^'^''°* »' ^

« #«v, would noi rrr °^ ?---.

But in the Bills of si Act 18^7^'^' " ^''>-

«• 23, 41 & 42 Vict, c 31) i r ^"^'"''^ ''^

• ^^^' whioh provided that

(a) Ce.ena Sulphur Co ^ w i .

W R. V. P<.y»,.,, 25 b' b ^,' «^ L. J. K. B. 561.
^'"H, 35 L. J. M. C 74. = ^ B. & c. 178, and see fi. v.

W Clarh V. .B«,3, St. Mdmund, 2fi T t ^

»• 12, 8. 24. "^- ^«« ■" '1"8 connection 44 Vict.

WOBDS B«8TBI0TED TO THE MATTER 121

rooi.s Which he SI °^''' °^ "'^''"^^^ ^^
not in the "apparent °!! '""""''"^ """"Py ^''^
that Act(a) P*"'''''""" "^ *em, within

^«^:r*:Stfr:::fS^----^
Caf 1 *th-^ err e'ir

clandestine rates enaZrfl ^ "'^'' '"'^S

Perrnit "every inVaSnt.*oftS^^^^^^^

the rates, under a penaltv for t^ , '"'P'"*

Mt to apply to a reS . ^''^' ^*« ^^^^

FF'j' to a retusal to one nt t-v,^ ^i. i
wardens, who was tt7=« • , °® church-

(o) 17 & 18 Viot. c 3fi ■ p ; ■
As to the wo«l .. traveu!;. T ^^ *""*'• *° ^-^ J- Ex. 17

« Edw. VII. 0. 39, s. 3- in p„„, f ;. ^^' '°^ '° I"l«nd

^' -B»«». 13 Q. B. V. 179 SeT ' f ^^ •"• <^- ^- ^ • '^™-<«i
Bettie, 193, and as to hour^^f ,° "^"*'* ^- -""-^^ (1894), 22
K. B. 271. ^°'^ °' '■"«• ■Bn.'m. v. Py«,, f igigj j

109

INTEEPRETATION OP STATnXM.

those inhabitants only who had previonslv no
access to the rates (which the cLch::^e:

ittf^TheTS; '"' *^'-"^^''^*-^3" -

In another case, the majority of the Jndges of

rt!f^"T' ^'"""^ "^"* ^"*^«' '^'«' tl^e Chief
Justice thought legitimate, in giving an unnsul
and even artificial meaning to a word, forTe

Cr/'nt"^"^ """'^ *^« apparent scoie of
the Ac . The treaty between Great Britain and
he Umted States of 1842 and the 6 &7Z
c. 76(6), passed to give the Executive the neces-
sary powers for carrying its provisions into e&
having provided that each State should on the
requisition of the other, deliver up to justice ^
personswho,being charged withmLer/"laey!

rtTylum'r. 1°° ? "*'^' «*^*«' ^'^'"^d «ee\
the other; it was held that the word- "piracv"
was confined to those acts which are decT2d
piracy by the municipal law of either oounrv

which are piracy m the ordinary and primary

Da«e (1837), 6 A & B. 374. ' ^^^ ' *' ^■

(*) Bepealed by 33 & 34 Vict, o 52 b 97 si. , „u
Extradition AoU9(«i (bribery ,.„,,;,4'^- ''■ ^ -^-> T,e

BENEFICIAL 0ON8TBUCTION. 123

sense of the word, that injure gentium: Tor as the
latter oflfence was within the jurisdiction of aU
Sta es, and was triable by aU, and the offenders
could not, consequently, be said to seek an asylum
m any State, since none could be a place of safety
lor them that species of the crime was not within
the mischief intended to be remedied by the treaty
or the Act (a). '

SECTION II.— BENEFICIAL CONSTBUCTION.

It is said to be tho duty of the judge to make
such construction of a statute as shall suppress
the mischief and advance the remedy («). Even
where the usual meaning of the language faUs
shor. of the whole object of the Legislature, a
more extended meaning may be attributed to the
words, If fairly susceptible of it. If there are
circumstances in the Act showing that the phrase-
ology is used in a larger sense than its ordinary
meaning, that sense may be given to it (c). Thus
-he Legislature having intended when passing the

(a) T.n^r> Se 33 L. J. M. C. 201. See al«, A.-O. v.
Kmk-a-Smg, h. E. 8 P. C. 179.

(6) ^^yto^'Caee, 3 Bep. lb; per Lo.d Kenyon, Turtle v
nartmll, 6 T. B. 429 ; per Oookhnrn P T 7" J^

n P n K9n o i^ooKDurn O.J., Twyeroia v. Grant, 2

UP.D.630. See ex. gv. Se Dick, £18912 ICb.m.

{e) Per Lord Esher M.E., BarW v. Has, (1890), 24 Q B D

(it ?a ri. ?. 8^2." "■ "• '''• -' '- «^- '•» '*^'°«- "/

124 INTEKPBETATION OF STATUTES.

Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897, that every
workman in the prescribed trades should be
entitled to compensation, it ought to be con-
strued so as, as far as possible, to give e£fect to its

(s. 64 (4). 26 & 26 Vict o. 63) limiting the liability
of shipowners where, among other things, the
injuiy done is " by reason of the improper naviga-
tion of their ships, extends to a case where a
oolhsion was owing, not to any default of the
crew, but to the breakdown of the steering gear
fiom the neghg nee of engineers on shore! who
had improperly fixed it(*). It would extend to
eveiy case where the negligence is that of any
person for whose negligence the owner is respon-
sibe, unless it occurred with the privity of the
latter(c) Wnere a colonial statute empowered
mnmcipal councils to construct bridges, and pro-
vided that in certrm circumstances the authorities
of adjacent" districts should contribute to the
cost It was held that the word " adjacent " has
not by ordinary usage a precise and uniform mean-
ing, and is not confined to places adjoining, but

W 60 & 61 Viot. 0. 37; Lyson> v. Knmles, [1901] A C 79
and see ^e«„, V. LockgeUy Iron & Coal Co. (1902), 1 P. 890. '

(fc) The Warkaorlh (1884), 9 P D U-i • „= ^^ ■ ^- ,
'^ 0. 503 of 57 & 58 vict. c. 60. ' '"'"'"^ '*''■

(c) Id. p«. Brett M.E. See also Car,a,la Sl.ipp;„g Co. v. Brim
Sh,po^er.- M«,ual Protection Society fi.889). sf L. J. Q. B 462

BENEFICIAL COVSTRCOTIOK. 126

?t^«lSr ?*"' f P™^'""^ ^•''"J' ^°°W justify
nZ ^1 "^ r"^ P^"°'' ^^°«« ^"'k is partly
at some distance from the shop where he is
employed is when employed i/ outdoor work
employed "in or about a shop " within the Shop

hou e to a drunken man and his sober companion
would be 0 " sell " the liquor to the drunken mZ'
although It was ordered and paid for by the sobe
oompamon(c). Adriverwho leaves a carriage and
horses standing in the highway leaves them whOe

. 78. Highway Act, 1835 (rf). Acts which gave a
single woman" who had a bastard chUd the

(«) Xayor of Wettington v. JHby^ „/ i<^,, jj„„ rigoii a C
773. But see Kmiberleu W. W. Co v n. j> Ir-

J^ 55 . 56 Vict. c. 62; Co«„.„,. ;. i^owiiS]' / Q. B.

eII! ''AVil"-^*- ""= 'his section repealed as rogarfs
England by 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V. c. 24. s^l2. Sched VII
As to existing law. see s. 75 of Licensing Consolidation Act 1910

M»,on,57 L. J M C 41 S«. i %, ' *""«'""■'' v.

inf. p. 186 ' "'''''"■ '^'^^ ^- -t" <?<««.

196

INTBBPBETATION OF BTATCTBa

right to Bue the putative father for its maintenance
have been held to include in that expression, not
only a widow (a), but also a married woman living
apart from her husband (i) ; for, the general object
of the Acts being to compel men to contribute to
the support of their iUegitimate offspring, even a
married woman living under circumstances incom-
patible with marital access, though not in popular
language a single woman, is' nevertheless, for the
purposes of the Acts, and therefore in the con-
templation of the Legislature, as "single " as a
woman who has no husband. So where by s. 141,
Army Act, 1881, assignments of or charges upon
pensions received by officers in respect of past
services are forbidden, but nothing is said in termp
about executions or attachments, it has been held
that these must be regarded as included ; as other-
wise the object to be effected, viz., to secure a
provision which should keep the pensioners from
want, and enable them to maintain a respectable
social position, would be frustrated (c). A soldier

(a) Antony v. Cardenhan. 3 Bott, 194; B. v. Wymondha,,., 2
H' "' 541.

(6) B. V. PaUnglon, 2 B. & B. 546, nom. Exp. Orime, 22
L. J. M. 0. 153 ; B. v. Cottinguood, 17 L. J. M. C. 168 ; B. v. Luffc,
9 B. E. 406. Comp. Staeey v. Liutell, 4 Q. B. D. 291 • Jones v
Davie,. [1901] 1 K. B. 118; see also Beigate Union v. Croydon
Union, 14 App. Cas. 465.

(c) M & 45 Viot. 0. 58 ; Lucas v. Harris, 56 L. J. Q. B. 15 ;
Be Saunders, 64 L. J. Q. B. 739.

BBWBFICTAL 0OK8TBU0TION.

127

l^^rjT '°*° 'r'''"'' ^''"^ -^ -'«- *° being
2al*;e,S! r*: .''" " "«' corner in ao J
SaToT • ""?" "• "• ^^« Act, 1837(a).
Act T^T^^T •'^*^" Municipal Corporations

of linW fK °°°»*™ed as extending to the cost
Do«/Ti. °'"I""-''*><'° P«w in the church (6)
Dogs(o). horses, cattle (d), and shares in a limi ed
company (.). have, by a beneficial const/rt o„
been held to be "goods" within the Taning of

to be a case m which gunpowder may be carried

ZmVT"" °' '''^'^'^^S '»>« requiremTof
the Metalliferous Mines Regulation Act. 1872 that
explosives shall not be taken into a mm; exceptt

oi^, ««oW«, In re, ri9191 P in- t-h ■ ^ /> " j.. jj. a.
• ^- «• D-ib, TbJfemocJe', Hnale, I„ re ri9171 P oar

.^"""'•'■■'■•■"^«-«-,..,,,^,.„.„

Ch. 216. ^- >•• ^, -Bros. v. Daviee, [1893] 2

128

ntTKRPBKTATION OF STATUTBg.

a "case or canister," as saoh a case would not
effect the object of the statute by affording protec-
tion against ignition from sparks (a). An English
trade-mark and goodwill are property within the
Stamp Act, 1891, and so is a share in a colonial
patent (A). On similar grounds the enactment in
the Artizans and Labourers' Dwellings Improve-
ment Act, 1876, which, after authorising local
authorities to purchase land for such dwellings,
provides that all rights or easements relating to
the purchased land should be extinguished, but
compensated for, has been held to include under
the word " rights " inchoate as well as complete
rights (c). An Act which required a railway com-
pany to make, for the accommodation of the
owners and occupiers of the adjacent lands, suffi-
cient fences for protecting the lands from trespass,
and the cattle of the owners and occupiers from
straying thereout, was held to include in the term

(a) 35 & 36 Viot. o. 77, s. 23(2 4); Fo,ttr v. Diphuy.Gauon
SlaU Co., 18 Q. B. D. 428.

(6) 54 &. 55 Viot. 0. 39, s. 59 (1) ; Brooke v. M. Bev., [1896]
2 Q. B. 356 ; Smelling Co. of Amtrnlia v. Inl. Bet., [1897] 1
Q. B. 175 ; electrical energy is property, see 9 Edw. VII o 34
8. 19. ' '

(c) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 36, a. 20, repealed s. 22, 63 & 54 Viot. o.
70; BarloK v. Ro»», 24 Q. B. D. 381. Comp. Bawkim v.
Ratier, [1892] 1 Q. B. 668 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 146, where " ease-
ment " was construed in its strictest sense. And see Bimortk
V. Sttlcllge (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 729.

BKNBKCMI, OOKSTBtJCTlOII. 129

"oooupier" a person who merely had pnt his
cattle on land with the license of. e oocupierH

"ol! V.'"°' T^^ «^«° ^»'<"» coupled with
owner" ,n an Act of Parliament (ft), has been
oonBt^ed. with the view of promoting the oS
of the enactment, as inolnding a person standing
on a spot in a park or place where he had no more
right to stand than any other person (c). So it
has been held under a repealed Act that cows
agisted on the terms that the agister should take
heir milk in exchange for their pasturage, were
taken m to be fed at a " fair price »(rf) that an
agreement by a shareholder with a company to
set off a present liability of the company to pay
cash to him against future calls on his shares was
a payment of the calls «in cash •'(.), that the
attendance of an uncertificated midwife at the

(a) Da«^y. Midland ij,. Co.. 42 L. J. Ex. 49. See also
J.«o„ V. L„ieard, 44 L. J. M. 0. 23. A, for principles dis
tmgm8h,ng a licen» from a demise, «« Sn»,H v. /a„^M A..el'.

r^Tar''"'*^- ^- ''•'''• '''•^^- '''''•'»•■• ''«'""«'-

(4) See Cliap. XL, See. IV.

W See Doggell v. Catlenn. (1864), 34 h. J. C. P. 46 • Bo«.
^ i-e>.».e* (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 107 ; Powell v. if^^ pZ

(d) 46 & 47 Viot. 0. 61, s. 45 (repealed by 8 Edw VII e m ■
lo^m & rori,. Bank v. SelUm, 15 Q. B. D 457 ^ '

(e) 30 & 31 Viot. 0. 131, s. 25 (repealed by 8 Edw. VII. 0 69) •
Jone, Lloyd d Co.. Be, 41 Ch. D. 159 ' '

9

130

INTF.RPRBTATIOK OF ITATUTn.

oonflnement of the wife of an elector, wLo wu sent
to her and paid for by the relieving officer, was
medical assistance," so that the relief afforded
did not disqualify the elector from being regis-
tered(«), that an antenuptial agreement for a
mamage settlement was a "marriage settle-
ment (b), and that "bedding" to the value of
■ii>, which IS protected from seizure by s 147
County Courts Act, 1888. which is incorporated
into the Law of Distress Amendment Act, 1888
includes a bedstead (c). " Member " in Art. 27 of
Table A to the repealed Companies Act, 18(J2—
which provided that any increased capital should
be offered to the " members ";,r<, rata, -included
the representatives of a deceased member whose
name was on the register (rf). A statute which
requires a railway company to keep in repair a
bridge carrying a highway over their lines,
requires them also to maintain the roadway upon

(a) 48 & 49 Viot. o. 46, 8. 2 (,epe»led by 7 & 8 Geo. V. o 64
note, 3. 9) ; Honeshme v. Hamhridge, 18 Q B D 418

(I) « & 42 Viot. 0. 3). ,. 4 ; Wenn>an v. Lyo. i Co.. [1891] 2
W. a. 192 ; see also Se Vannllarl, [1893] 1 Q B 181

i..j^'.'By3r'""-'^'"-*=^"'^-^-"*w^

r ■ ■ ■ rt' o«« Zf'" '*"™ "■ ^"^ ^'^' 'f ^^' ^"•«''. ca

U J. Ch. 266. A hke condition is contained in Article 42 of
labia A appended to 8 Edw. VII. c. 69,

■WBWCIAL CONgTKOCTIOX.

131

going to sea tihin), ""*''' ""^ """ ^'^'^ '«"
in harbour Llr,^' J" P"P«"««^ by four oar,

which provides that wleu 1 Ln • ^""5 ^'"' ^^'^'
"•hips " takes di!! *t "°° *^*''"'> **°

the cancellation or rsrenlnofK'""' °" ^"^ "'
Though 8. 2 of fhl ""P*"" "^ "^ his certificate.

(a) 8 4 9 Viot. c. 20 a 4(! . r . .

H A. c. 417 ; .v.« XLr:'z ' ^'^i- "'■ ^- ^'"».

Soe also as to a ■' hook " w 1 .?' ^'^'^'"'9': 24 L. T 644
^. 2. See ^„,,. ]°;; , XS i'^T-'^" ^ * 6 Viet. e. "
'•"We V. Mark,, IJ. 107 I" //•'*""'■ ^^ !<■ J- Cb. 67;
For an exhaustive disqliti^:";!"':""' «" ^- J- Ch. 419
Clerk and L.n<„eU on Tort, t^ r ''"'^*'" ^^- ''''■ ^
;i»iier •■ within 45 . 46 Z. T,, JTIS" /",' " '° "

(i) For definition of " vessel " see W x « ,;•

n- ««., 7 P D 126 • fl 2^' ■ "■ ^ '^^ «• 28(" C<„„„

132

INTBBPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

purpose of oanying passengers on pleasure trips
round an artificial lake has been held not to be
a " vessel used in navigation " so as to need the
suspension on ^oard of a Board of Trade certifi-
cate (a). And perhaps as a general proposition the
words of a statute should be construed in accord-
ance with the dictum of Lord Watson, who says
with regard to deeds, in an unrecorded case, " the
deed must be read as a whole in order to ascertain
the true meaning of its several clauses, and the
words of each clause should be so interpreted as
to bring them into harmony with the other
provisions ... if that interpretation does no vio-
lence to the meaning of which they are naturally
susceptible " (ft).

Another instance of beneficial construction is
afforded by s. 3 of the Common Lodging Houses
Act, 1853, which forbids the keeping of " a com-
mon lodging-house " unless it has been inspected,
approved, and registered. The object of the enact-
ment (which is repealed except as to Metropolitan
PoUce District by 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55, s. 343) being
to secure for the poor using these houses condi-
tions safeguarding health and preventing the

(a) 17 & 18 Viot. 0. 104, sB. 2, 318 (repealed by Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894) ; Mayor of Southport v. Xorrits, [1893]
1 Q. B. 359; see also Salt Union v. Wood, [1893] 1 Q. B. 370.

(i>) Norlh-Eaitem Sy. v. Haatinge {lord), [1900] A. C 260 at
p. 267.

BENEFIOUL CONSTRUCTION. 133

spread of disease, which people better off are

7sZL'° 'V"^ *° ^^•""^ ^"^ then^selvl;
was held to apply to a shelter kept for a charitable
purpose and not for gain (a).

A debtor residing abroad " keeps out of the way
to avozd service" of process, within the n,e Jng
of the Bankruptcy Bales for substituted servicT^")
and under s. IS (7), Friendly Societies Act, 875
(repealed s 35, Friendly Societies Act, 1896)

Bhall be entitled to the privilege of having "any

wbch shaU be m the possession of any officer ;f

the eocie y upon his bank- , ptcy, handid o'r to

he society m preference to aay other debts or

aims against his estate, it has been held that

the society is entitled to be paid out of such

estate any balance due to it, in respect of ireys

received by him for it, even though he has noTL

h s possession those moneys in specie, and they

cannot be traced (c). ^

The statutes which require notice of action for

iOVlJ, " ""'t "■ "' '''""*'» '■ Sooa, 11900] 1 Q B
lUI, Logidon v. Trotter. Id 617 S^ u J ^ V- -B-

Tnlbot, 75L J Ch 8- CM . r ■ "''*''"• ^"'*"- »•

134

JNTEBPBETATrON OF STATUTES.

be don? "'' r"''°° "^ "" "<=* ^^'°h ought to

to what has been called a strict construction wiU

an extended meaning to a word (A) ^

A statute which requires something to be done

Xd w fJ, '^ "* "''"^'"**' ^«%«^«. be com-

piled with, m general, if the thing were don« kI
another on his behalf and by his Authority ftril

(a) Wthon V. flii?,/aa,, 37 L J Ft ii n .

(1893, 56 & 57 4t 0 61 h''" "^""""-'''^^ ^'o'^""- Act
requiring .otle^f aoln '.' T'"'' "^'"''^ ^" ">« »""■""»
a gene J ^Z J sTZ::£ ""^^ "'^^'^ "^ ^' ^ <«)

(1891), 60 L. J. M C is'; p r^- ^^ "' ^''"J"'"- ^^P-
SOL. J K B 17 w • u. , ' ^^- '*'"""■*«'■ (1911),

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION. j-,-

th. .b.mc, of .T Wtalorf,,). So i,

the wntten consent of the author of a drama toT
-P^sentation, was held sufficiently colpHed^^:

20? f ;: C™''y fl^' f "V ^- «• ^2 ^ i*. V. Car,:..

60 L. J M C 52 if'/ ; e '■ *• "■ *• ^"--^ ^*'"'«' (1891),
HuntmgdonMre, 19 L. J. M C 127 ■ ^i, ' ^^^ ''•

Power of Attorney in i"i ^ tr"' ' "^^ "^^ '° <^ff«<" °f

(^)--.««v/lJj(,"s9f): i".VSS^^

laj ^""-'w V. tV/„„d, 24 L. J. C. P. 169.

136

INTBBPRETATION OF STATUTES.

that the tenant so planting" them should file
an aflBdavit within twelve months, in a form
given by the Act, which purported throughout
to be made by the tenant personally, the House
of Lords construed the Act aa satisfied by the
affidavit of the tenant's agent. A stricter con-
struction, It was said, would have rendered the
Act mapplicable to most of the oases which it had
m view (a).

The principle is weU illustrated by two decisions

under the partially repealed (6) 6 & 7 Vict, c 18

which required that the person who objected to a
vote, 3h Id ,ig^ ^ ^^^.^^ ^^ ^.^

dehver it to the postmaster. This was held to
require personal signature (c), but not personal
delivery or receipt (^). It was material that the
person objected to should be able to ascertain that
he reaUy was objected to by the objector, which
he could not so easily do if a signature by an agent
was admitted; just as, to guard against persona-
tion, the signature of a voting paper under the
former Mumcpal Corporations Act must be per-
sonal and not by agent («). But there was no

(a) Mounlcmhll v. aNeill (1856), 5 H. L Caa 937 q<.« i
51 & 52 Viot. c. 37, s. 1. !•" ^■^■^B.s.Sai. See also

(i) See 7&8GeoV. 0.64,8. 47, Sched 8

31 L. ?a P. 51""'"' ^'""^' " ''■ •"■ °- ""■ ^' '■ ■"""'■' '■ *"'-'»■

(d) Cuming v. Totm (1844), 14 L. J C p 54

(«) 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 32, ropsaljd 45 & 46 Vict. 0. 50,

BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION.

137

v^id reason for snpposiiag that the Legislature
did not intend to give effect to the rule, L/ fJt

TrZr\- , ^'"'^l«^g« of the servant may be
constniohve^y that of the master within the mean!
ing of an Act, even when making the master
pendly responsible (.). An Act (18 & 19 ^^^t
0 121) (repealed except a« to London) which
a.tas justices to summon a person by whose
ao^ a nuisance arises, or, if that person cannot be

t exists, was held to authorise the summoning of
he occupier If the person who had actuaUy done

latter is that of the former (6).

On the same principle it has been held that s. 3
Truck Act, 1831, which provides that the entire
amount of wages earned by an artificer shaU be
actually paid to him in the current coin of the

L J. C. P. 162 "^ ^- •^''"*«"'. *6

(o) Core V. Jamcg, L. E 7 O R 1 9s t- , ,

applying liquor to a constable ot duty ' """ "'

188

INTKRPRETATION OK STATUTES.

realm, would be sati=^fled by payment being made
to his authorised agent (a).

On the other hand, the Statute of Frauds
Amendment Act, 1828, 9 Geo. IV. c. 14, which
requires an acknowledgment " signed by the party
chargeable thereby," to take a debt out of the
Statute of Limitation, has been held to require
personal signature, and not to admit of a signature
by an agent {h). But this construction was based
partly on the circumstance that another Statute
of Limitation made express mention of an
agent (c). Where an Act required that notices
should be signed by certain public trustees, or by
their clerk, it was held that the signature of the
clerk of their clerk, who had a general authority
from his employer to sign aU documents isouing
from his office, was not a compliance with the
Act(rf). And a lithographic indorsement of a

(o) 1 & 2 Will. IV. 0. 37; Bewlett v. Allen. [1894] A C 383 ■
as to when a " set off" ig admissible, see Williams v. N,M\
Namgation CoUierim, [1904] 2 K. B. 44, at p. 55, C. A. ; see also
bummerlea Iron Co. v. Thomso,^ (1913), S. C. (J.) 34. As to what
M an lUegal coutract under the Act, see Kemp v. Lew,, [1914 3
K. B. 643.

(6) Eyde v. JoJk,o„ (1836), 2 Bin.;. (N. C.) 776. See also
Sw.ft V. Je,«h„ry, L. R. 9 Q. B. 301; Willimm v. MaM.n. as
U T. 232 ; Barwld v. Enyli«h Joiut Stoek Bani, L. E. 2 K.x. 259 ■
Hmt V. We,t Eiding Union Hanking Co., [1901] 2 K. B. 560 ,'
Ciluens Life Assurance Co. v. Brown, [1904] A. 0. 423 P C

(c) Sup. pp. 68-69.

(./) Miles V. Brough, 32 B. 845; 61 E. E. 409; UgK, v.

BKNEFlOUr, CONSTBUCTION. 130

solicitor's name is not a compliance with the
provision of the County Court Eules that he
should "indorse on the partioulars his name or
urm, but the solicitor's name written by his
authonsed clerk will suffice (a).

Again where the statute required that the act
should be done by the party "himself," it would
hardly admit of its being done by an agent, as in
the case of the provision that a nomination paper
of a candidate for municipal office should be
ehvered to the town clerk by the candidate
himself, or his proposer or seconder (6). A statute
which provides that a person, not a party to an
eleofaon petition, who is charged with corrupt
practices, shaU have an opportunity of being heard
by himself" and of calling witnesses, does not
authorise his appearing by counsel or solicitor (c).
So, where an A^t required a special quaUfication

J%!^1W '' ^"""'^ °°"^ «"'<'^' I'-'O^-iaiS; BO held

f J5^u ' *• ''■ ^""■oyf^o"^'^ (1890), 59 L. J. Q B 265
Lord Ksher M.B. dissenting.

(6)»,i, V. /„*„„, 46 L. J. C. P.. 102. aistinfiuished in
""r/o^ly. L.n.ke, (1899), 1 Q. B. 852, at p. 861. Tl>e much

0 ™tt h "' ^"'^ '■ " '■ ^°' P^"-"' P™™'onH a,

TJ^'JT^- '" ' " '''"'• ^- "• «"■ -'' ''^ Schedule.
W 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51, s. 38; ij, v. Manuel Jones. 23 Q. 13. D
-J, seo also Monks v. J«ci™„, iQ L. J. C. P. 162.

140

INTBBPBETATION OF 8TATUTK8.

for doing anything. As. for example, under the
Pharmacy Act, 1868. which by s. 15 prohibited

person! r ? *^' "^' °' P°"°'"' ^y ^^'i^o^^-i
persons, the shopman of a qualified employer, not

lumself quahfied, was held liable to a penalt; for

selhrg, except under the personal supervision of

his employer (a); but an unqualified person who

receives an order for poison and forwards it to

a manufacturer who supplies it directly to the

customer, has not the conduct and management of

the rale so as to constitute him the seller within

the meamng of the Act (6).

or letting a house for habitation y Jersons of
the workmg classes there shaU be an implied

Md^ord to that effect, and so giving the tenL a
right to sue on it, for the purpose of giving effect

re^V^' * ^' ^''"- " '''■ "■ '^' "-^ »- 32 & 33 Vict, o 117

24 O n n ROQ ' '^^"'""^"^l Soey. v. B7„.«W,m,

80 I 7 K B ir '^" '"t"™"'™'" «-^- V- i^-* (1911),
58 L. J. Ch:3;; 40 Ch ^''sg "" " '^™""'-«i-*« («8B),

S 4^*'"rrrv''" '^'- ^- '^"'''' ™ ^- j- «■ b- see.

Q. B 93 '^""- "; ''■ '• ^^^ "^"'^^ - ^o*. 5a L. J.

141

BENBncUL OONSTBUCTIOW.

by the affidavit of such „!!f ^u"""" '"PP°'*«^
material doonment wasT i"''" '''''' ''"'' '^

niy by their sohcitor, the affidavit

frltStTT '• '^''""'"' (^««*)- 33 L- J - P 121.
treaena v. Konrfer»«e (1877^ 4fi r t n t> ,„ • ■^^^•

Clark. 2f L. J. Ex 113 K ^^ ^^*' ^'''''¥M v.

testify to the requisite f«Pf« ""^ °'"' """• o*" Positively

W Per Brie O.J., Id.

1«

INTEBPBETATION OF STATOTia.

Of the latter was considered a substantial com-
pliauce with the Act.

A provision of 3 * 4 Will. IV. o. 42. which,
after depriving the parties to a reference under a
rule of Court or judge's order of the power which
they formerly had of revoking the authority of
their arbitrator, enacted that a judge might from
time to time enlarge the time for the arbitrator to
make his award, was at first thought confined to
cases wii.'e a revocation had been attempted (a)-
or, at all events, applicable only where the arbi-
trator had no power to enlarge the time, or had
not yet made his award (A) ; but it was afterwards
held that a judge had power to enlarge the time
in all references made by judicial order (c); and to
do so even when the arbitrator issued his award
after the time to which he was limited had ex-
pired, and the award was consequently, so far a
nullity (d). '

The beneficial spirit of construction is also well
illustrated by cases where there is so far a conflict
between the general enactment and some of its

(o) Poller V. Newman (1836), 5 L. ,1. Ex. 93n.
(4) Per Tindal C..T., Lambert v. Butchmmn. 2 M. & Gr H5S
and per Patteson J., Due v. Pcrell, 7 Dowl. 539.
(<•) Ledie V. liichardson, 17 h. J. C. P. 324.
frf) Be Ward. 32 L. J. Q. B. 53; L„rd'y. Lee (1868) ;i7

^loi,,*'; ^ ^^'' ^"°"'" * *"*• ^"'- ''• ^""o" Corpomli.,,.
■1900] 2 Q. B, at p. 257. See also B. S. C, Order LXIV
r. 14a.

BBNBWCIAL CONgT«UCTIOX. J43

seoute the appeal, presents such a conflict ViT
't excludes corporations from the 2ht l"f ,

fioial way of interpreting the statute. The Inl,"
and paramount object of the ArtZ.i! ^ ^^
^e. hy giving^ ,0 coZXZstZZ
n«ht of appeal against the burthen imposed on
tl^em ; and the subsidiary provision T.)^ T

(n) 03rt/»

•«■«»< Walemori, (1827), 7 B. & C. 314.

144

iwrrapiBTATios or 8tatctii».

«i ^ T*?'' interpretation would «ot have
earned out that intention (a).
The Charitable Uses Act. 1735, 9 Geo. II o 38

chanty by other means than by u deed «L ♦ ?
a year before the donor's death'Cas open tot

passed by deed, and therefore not to lands oflonv
hold tenure (*). But as the object of the staS
was. manifestly, to include all Lds of whatev

ttr Vu ^™"''"°''' *»>« °"^y oonseqaence
that would have foUowed, if it had been thouel

iold, "*" f ,'*<»^'l operate to transffrcop;

iiavo fallen withm the general prohibition abac
utely and would have been incapable of IZ"
to a chanty by any mode of conveyance (c) '

Except m some cases where a statute has fallen
under the pnncple of excessively strict const c-
tion the language of a statute is generaJlv ex
tended to new things which were nol knowS a^d

S. 2: b'Z: ng^;"; ^: r-- r^^ ^ ^h. 378 ; see a,ao
_ ' ■"■ "' LiyuoJ 1 Oh., at pp. 724 79.S. ._j « , „

148

"■NWCUL COKSTHUCTION

"enipts lords from the k^?" ?^""' ^^"^
c-rtB taken fo, „a^^: t^^'^iV?"""^ their
degrees of nobility not knJ^ ." *° "^^^d to
«" dukes, marquises Id r^ " '* *'"' »«de.

tiaily repealedPoo'sX rr??<*^- ^^« P"'
pa":8hionen, the ri^hf „ ^°*' ^^^3' »Weh gave

f churchwardens t, tZ"'"^ *'^ -"-"^

law of Elizabeth, wa^ h«M ? " ""•*«' «»« POor

^•"''dians, offlcl wl jf *" '"'^'"^ ^ *hose o

Act (22 Geo. IIL) J° !?' T*^'' ''^ GUberfs

transfers of lands, goods an! i.''*^'"'"'* ''"**°")

(«) i-er Bovill Cj » „ «, • '

l^r Holt CJ I- ■ ' ""'* (1870) r, R 1 r, ^

('•) 17 Geo. II. c 3S ■ oo ^
f "); if. V. c„„; i^' ^^•'- "I- «• 83 (repealed 8 I, b

I.S. ^- -B-'fce/, [I916J 2 Ch. 5.I4.

iO

148

.XTEEPBETATION OF STATUTES.

as these were not seizable in execution (a) ; but
when they were made subject to be so taken
(1 & 2 Vict. 0. 110), thej feU mthin the operation
of the Act (A). The Act of Geo. II., which pro-
tected copyright in engravings by a penalty for
piratioBlly engraving, etching, or otherwise, or
"in any other manner" copying them, extends
to copies taken by photography (c). A telegram
may be a forged instrument according to the true
interpretation of the Forgery Act (d). The tele-
phone is a "telegraph" within the meaning of
the Telegraph Acts, 1863 and 1869, though not
invented or contemplated in 1869 («). Every com-
pany (including a private company) (/) registered

(o) Siiiu V. Thomas, 12 A. & B. 536.

(6) Norcutt V. Sodd (1841), 54 H. B. 224 ; Barni,k v.
McCttUoch, 26 L. J. Ch. 105 ; B. v. Smith, L. E. 1 C. C. 270, per
Bovill C.J. ; Edmunds v. Edmunds, [1904] P. 362.

(c) 8 Geo. II. 0. 13 ; see 1 & 2 Geo. V. o. 46, and note ;
Gambarl v. Ball, 32 L. J. C. P. 166 ; Graves v. Ashford, L. R. 2
0. P. 410; A.-6. V. Lockwoal, 9 M. & W. 378; Comp. Hanf-
slaengl v. Empire Palace, [1894] 2 Ch. 1 ; Id. v. Newnes, [1H'J4]
3 Ch. 109; note also cases cited inf. Chap. X., See. I; tor uu
exhaustive resumi of the subject in Clerk and Lindsell on
Torts, Chap. XXI.

(d) 24 & 25 Vict. c. 98, 8. 38, partially repealed and
re-enacted by the Forgery Act, 1913, 3 & 4 Geo. V. c. 27;
iJ. V. Biley, 66 L. J. M. C. 74.

(e) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 112; 32 & 33 Vict. c. 73; A.-C. v
Edison Telephone Co., 6 Q. B. D. 244 ; Postmaster General v.
National Telephone Co., [1907] 1 Ch. 621.

(/) White, In re, [1913] 1 Ch. 231.

BENEFICLT CONSTBUCTION. 147

to include oases ni„ i '"' '''*"'«'l so as

-pealed Sunday Clo^ng^J;; J; T'. *'^
quired that Dnhl,V k ^ ^''*' ^^^^h re-

certain hours on L 7'"' '' '' '""^^^ "^^

being oonstmed as r.T' "^'^ ^^''^ ^'^^^P'^We of

Schedule to the LI"" T'''^' '' *^^ ^'^
1910 And 1 rt ^'"^"^""S (Consolidation) Act

'^o.\hX-irofTh?CouH%T^V^^^^^^^^^^
the statutory rule dir«!f 1 ^^P''^' f'^) *^^^
new trials in cases tSedT^ ^'* applications for
to the CouS of T" f ^^ T'^ ^"^""'^ be made
cases tried by at offi 'T '/"* "^ ^"'^"<^«'J *°
e-edhyleg-LLnCr "^'^r^---»'-

ii»«,7»« (1915), 111 ^''^JJg^."«V.«, [1898] 1 Ch. 115;
(') Sup- pp. 25-26.

(") 44 & 45 Viot. c. 61 a 1- p ..J-,
71. ■ '• ^ ' -^'"■'^'*<' V. Coljutun,n, 11 Q. B. D.

(rf) 53 & 54 Viot. o. 44 s 1 • r.

(^) 62 Viot. 0. 6, 8. 1. ' "^ "■ ^''''"'- 39 W. B. 193.

CHAPTER III.

CONSEQUENCES TO BE CONSIDERED — PBESDMPTION
AGAINST ANY ALTERATION OF THE LAW BEYOND
THE SPECIFIC OBJECT OF THE ACT— MENS REA
IN CBIMINAL LAW.

Before adopting any proposed construction of a,
passage susceptible of more than one meaning, it
is important to consider the effects or consequences
which would result from it (a), for they often point
out the real meaning of the words (*). There are
certain objects which the Legislature is presumed
not to intend ; and a construction which would
lead to any of them is therefore to be avoided. It
is not infrequently necessary therefore to limit the
effect of the words contained in an enactment
(especially general words), and sometimes to
depart, not only from their primary and literal
meaning, but also from the rules of grammatical
construction in cases where it seems highly im-
probable that the words in their wide primary
or grammatical meaning actually express the real

(0 Grot, de B. & P. b. 2, o. 16, s. i; U. S. v. FMer
2 Granch, 390.
(6) Puff. L, N. b. 5, 0. 12, s. 8.

intention of the Leffislflfnrn. -^u •
able to hold thatV« T , "°«'"°'-"«a«o'>-
intention in a b1„1 , ^^'''"*'^^ «^P^««««d its
-aningsho„w;ej::^J--. <;ban *^^* ^
have been intended "" ''^"''' """^^ 'lot

aoe?n7/irn7;T.^et:'*^f*^^^^^^^^^^^^^
in the iaw beyondwhat if/^f.^'^^al alteration
either in express te"t ^ tf j"^' .^-lares (.),
0^ in other words, blond tL ?P"'"»«°^;

and object of the statuir jl 'Z'"'"'''''*^ ^""P^
%ond the W reJt l^.S^J^'^r''''
the last degree improbable that fh t ' ""

would overthrow fundamel] ■ ,^'«^«^ature
rights, or departure *n ^T^'"'' ''"'^^^
without expressinV^ * /T™' '^'*''" °^ iaw,

clearness(/rrd ' S "^^^ '"^^'^*^"^

general iVlp*; TeLZ' Z\'^'''' *°
meaning when used eLerir.. ^.^"^" **"'*
«8nal or their natnrT " ''''^"''' their

tbem a meaning o^T' "- " "' *° ^"^
actually intended"^ alriZ T' "'"^ ^'^

^t-Si^f-^^-^X
~-4*sr:^r:tr^^:

f') 2 Cranoh, 390. ' '""' '^ '"'• P' 313-

150

INTKnrnETATION OP RTATUTES.

of the Act, and as not altering the law
beyond (a).

Thus, a statute which authorised "any" or
" the nearest " justice of the peace to try certain
cases, would not authorise a justice to try any
such cases out of the territorial limits of his own
jurisdiction (/>) ; or any in which he had a dis-
qualifying interest or a bias (c) ; or which he
was incapacitated from hearing by any other
general principle of law(rf); still less to hear
them by any other course of proceeding than that
established by law(e). So, the Debtors Act,
1869, empowering "any (inferior) Court" to
commit for default of payment of a debt, in pur-
suance of an order or judgment of " that or any
other competent Court," did not authorise such a

(n) See per Sir J. Eomilly, Minet v. Lenan, 20 Beav. 278;
liiver Wear Commimianers v. Ailamaon, 1 Q. B. D 564 per
Mellish L.,I., 2 App. Cas. 743 ; Sv. A.-O. v. Kxeter Carp (1911)
80 L. J. K. B. 636.

(6) 1 Hawk. P. C. c. 65, s. 45 ; Tlie Peerlem, 1 Q. B. 153 ; fl v
F„lmgdah,, 7 B. & C. 438 ; .%. per Darling J., Be Bron (Km
80 L. J. K. B. 147.

(-•) S. V. Chelleniam, 55 R. K. 321 ; B. v. Meyer (187G)
1 Q. B. D. 173 ; B. v. L. C. C, 61 L. J. M. C. 75. It , '
Of. Yarmoulh J J. (1882), 8 Q. B. D. 525.

(il) Bonham'8 Case, 8 Hep. 118a ; Great Charie v. Ketmimjtnn,
2Stra. 1173; B. v. Sainslmry (1791), 2 B. E. 433; In,r«« v
Beynnlds, [1904] 1 Cli. 718.

(e) Dalt. c. 6, s. 6 ; fluerin, In re (1888), 53 J. P. 468 ; comp.
Dullon, Kxp. (1911), 75. J. P. 658.

An Act which authorisLfr. '''""'''''(''>•
authorise a seizure of 1 / ""' ^""''^ '>°*
Theprovision Ts 25 fsT t:," T*' '''''^'^■
that the Court n> ghf i!it 1" "^ ^'^' '«^^'
cases in which it ;)!. 7^ injunction in all

convenienr-- L 3uch °°f''' '* "'"«* ''"^

^i^note.tenftrer^XXrCr^^^;
cases where there was an Las on of ^^"'"^

legal or equitable rights M The n ''"^""''^
R. 1, Order LV,E.S C llS'r I P^^^^^^om in

B. 8. C.) and\h;'rep;Xa7;)T^2s'1''^^
Caual Traific Act 187<J fj. ! .1' ' ^^^l^ay *

»J the Court o( rh. "" ''"» «•""«!

rt) 17 & 18 Vict, c 104 s 62S , , , ^' "' PP' ^^^a. 670.
58 Vict. c. 60 s 693 n ,t ' ^"^ "'"' '^eno^ted by 57 &

L. J. Ch. 173; and p,r Lorf H»fh , ^ ''■ ^"»"'"a9, 48
"■ L- 193. See aL JiTr ^*"'"''«y> -»"»»' v. £„., L. E 5
' Ch. 238 C. A., at p 249 " ^""^ ^"''"''^ ^"^ ^893]

W Repealed by 51 & 52 Vict. c. 25

(^)^°-v •«.r.«..„.(1882);8Q.B.D.515;^.„..

1S2

INTKBPRETATION OF STATUTES.

'Fresh evidence " within the meaning of s 7
Summary Jurisdiction (Married Women) Act, ms
which gives magistrates jurisdiction to rescind
a separation order previously made under s. 4 of
tnat Act, means the same sort of evidence as that
upon which a new trial would in the ordinary
course be granted (a).

An Act which provided that a mayor should not
he, by reason of his office, ineligible as a town
councmor or alderman, would not make him
eligible when he acted in the judicial capacity of
returning officer at the election; for it would not
be a just construction of the language used, or a
le^timate inference from it, that the Legislature
had mtended to repeal" by a mere side-wind the
princip.c of law that a man cannot be a judge in
his own case (6). So. an Act which directed the
election of officers, would be understood as autho-

£.tete, Se. 34 Ch. D. 24; i„„ta y. p„i;^„„ (jgg^j^ gg ^ ^

(a) S8 & 59 Vict. c. 39 ; J„i„,„„v. Johnson. 69 L. J P D & ^
j^-.Doaay. Dodd, [1906] P. 189, at p. 199. As to what is

fresh evidence, see Tinmin. v. Timmim. [1919] P. 75. As to
the character of evidence which a justice should require when
making an order, see Terry v. Terry (1915), 32 T. L B 167
Comp. Murtagl v. Barry, 24 Q. B. D. 632, inf p 519

J1 f ;;■ ^"" ^^^^^' ^^ ^- J- «• «• 316 ; ii V. TeMe.h,ry.
37 L. J. Q. B. 285 ; B. v. Milledge, i Q. B. D. 332, S. C. nom

T/b'^^™*"'*' "^ ^- ^- ^- °- 139; -R. V. Henley, [1892]
1 y. a. 504 ; JB. V. Morton, [1892] 1 Q. B. 39.

PBE8UMPTI0N A0AIN8T OEKERAL ALTEBATIOVS. 153

rising 8„oh election only on a lawful day. and not

Z. AT^'l' ""'^ '^ *^« '"''^'' declared that
the candidate who had the majority of votes should

LtiT /'''"'^■•* ^""'^ ^« ''°'>«*™ed as not
mtendong to override the general principle, tha

voters who vote for a person whom they'know to
be inehgible, throw away their votes (b)

In the same way, a statute requiring a recog-
msance would not be understood as gfving com-
petency to minors and married women to bind
hemselves by such an instrument (a). But s^ce
the passmg of the Married Women's Proper!

may enter into recognisances, and it would seem
that the rule m the case of infants is not of
universal application (rf). The Statute of West
«er 2, which gave a judgment cred torthe
wnt of elegit to take half the lands of his debtor
M not authorise the issue of the writ agist the

(») S. V. Cooi, (1854), 23 L J O Tl iqq J-
PriU^ar, v. Sa^^Jcorplm). 13 AC 2il b'^TT^ '"
vWW(188,)a8L...Q.^

88S . A V. jr.».Wed«„ £„„. Board. 51 L. J. Q. B 219

(«) Bennett v. TTabon 3 M * H i d „

ff-..'. C«.e. 9 Bep Ts. ' ^'"'''"'' ^'^- ' '"''■ ''' '

W William,, Exp. (1824), 13 Price. 673.

IM

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

heir of the debtor during his minority (a). So,
s. 7, 43 Eliz. c. 2, in making the mother and grand-
mother of an illegitimate child liable to maintain
it, did not reach them when under coverture {/>) ;
and an Act which punished " every person " who
deserted his or her children would not apply to
a married woman, without separate estate, whom
her husband had deserted (e).

And now by virtue of the Married Women's
Property Acts a married woman is entitled to
renounce or disclaim a gift by will of personal pro-
perty notwithstanding it is bequeathed subject to
a restraint on anticipation (d).

Again, the enactment which gave a vote for the
election of town councillors to every " person " of
full age who had occupied a house for a certain
time, and provided that words importing the mas-
culine gender should include females for all pur-
poses relating to the right to vote, was held,
having regard to the general scope of the Act, to
remove only that disability which was founded' on
sex, but not to affect that which was the result of
marriage as weU as sex, and therefore not to give

(a) 2 Inst. 395.

(i) Cmtodes V. Mnkes, Styles, 283; Draper v. Glenfiekl, 2
Jiulstr. 345; Coleman y. Birmingham, 50 L. J. M. C. 92; but see
8. 21, Married Wamen'a Property Act, 1882.

(c) Peters v. Come, 46 L. .T. M. C. 177.

(r/) Wimperit, In re, [1914] 1 Ch. 502.

PRESUMPTIOH AOAWST OEKERAL ALTEBATIONX. 155

the right Of voting to married women (a), but this
dmbiluy is BOW removed by the Representation
0. the People A.t, 1918. An Act which simply left
the determmation of a matter to a majority of
vest^men "present at the meeting" would not

demand a poU; and the "meeting" would there-
ore be understood as continuing until the end of

t^^lil ^- ^' ^'^^' ^^XVII, B. S. C, under
which the Court has power in any cause or matter
a any stage of the proceedings to order the
attendance of any person for the purpose of pro-
ducmg any documents which the Court may think
fit to be produced, and which such person could
be compeUed to produce at the trial, does not
authorise an orde for the production of documents
m the case of a person not a party to the litiga-
t.on, when there is no trial or application pending,
and the production is not necessary for carrying
out an order already made ((•).

(«) 32 A 33 Vict. c. 55, ,. 9; fi. v. BarraM. 41 L. J. Q B

T; cr US n "/7'' '' ""■ '■ ^' ^- ''■• ^» ^''^^'' s-i'

,n 7; f ' -^"■'"/'"•''-^°P« V. Sandkunt. sup. p. 153

c V I V K \'-r'- '• ''■ '^^'"'^ 'y'' '^ "" Vict.
W C P 1 r . ''• '■ ''■ °- ''■■ "^^''^ '■ «-'«. 32

W ™.r y. Carter. 25 Q. B D. 194 ; OShea v. Wood. [1S91]

IM

tNTEBPBETATIOV Or STATUTM.

In making copyholds devisable, the Wills Act,
1H37. 1 Viot. c. 26, was construed as not intend-
ing to interfere with the relation of lord and
temnt ; and consequently the devised copyholds
did not vest immediately in the devisee, but
remained in the -nstomary heir until the devisee's
admittance («). So. 39 Eliz. o. 6, which gave to
all persons " seised of lands in fee, power to
found hospitals, was construed as not conferring
that power on corporate bodies which were dig"
abler) -fom aUenation ; though the word " persons "
was wide enough to include corporations, an.l
indeed extended to those corporate bodies which
possessed the power of alienation, such as munici-
palities (b). Again, the Wills Act of Hen, VIII (<■)
which empowered " all persons " to devise their
lands, did not legalise a devise of land to a cor.
poration(rf), nor would it have enabled lunatics
or mmors to make a will, even if the 34 & 35

P. 237, 286; Straker v. Reynold, (1888), 22 Q. B. D 262 But
««. under 42 Viot. o. 11, .. 7; Howard v. Beall (1889),

"O y. 1j. D. 1.

..^l.^f"-^ "■ *'*"''' *" ^- ^- ^- ^- "''^ ^"'"V-C" V, ImU
(1872), L. E. 7 Q. B., at p. 685. See as to choses in action,
B„lop V. Curti, (1862), 88 E. E. 819 ; 18 Q. B. 878.
(i) 2 Inst. 721 ; Neucaalle Corp. v. A.-O., 12 CI & P 402
(«) Eepealed by Y Will. IV. and 1 Viot. e. 26, s. 2.
(d) 32 Hen. VIII. o. 1; Jew, College Cme, Duke, Chant.
Uses, 78; Brane/4 v. RaveHng, Id. 83; Chrkf, Bo,pUal v.
Hawe; Id. 84.

PBEHUMPTION AOA.N8T OKN.BAL ALTEBAT.OKB. 157

Hen^VIII 0. 1 (a), had not been passed to prevent
a different construction (A). The object of the
Legislature was, obviously, only to confer a new
power of disposition on persons already of capacity
0 deal wuh their property and not to aborh an
existing disability from disposing or taking those
who were under such incapacity.

A statute which enacted that "every convev-
arice in a particular form should be .'vaM^.
woold^ not thereby cure an initial deficit

So. the Tithe Act, 1836, in declaring maps
made under its provisions, " satisfactory evLncT"
of the matters therein stated, as not necessa^Jv

::nrth::b'-'""*'°'' °'' ""^^ ^^^-^^^zi

f ZVctrl^'Tf r "f ^'^-«ig'» to the scope
01 tUe Act (d). But such evidence has been held
admissible in the case of a "manor map ''Jit

long anterior to the date of action by a deceai
(«) Repealed by I Edw. VI. o. 12.
('') Beek/ord v. Wwie, 17 Ves Ql r'

. ».» ~ ."SI ;7i?r'> * « «■'

5 B. & Aid. 492. ^° ' ^'"' "■ BartU,

(') Ward V. Scolt, 3 Camn 2fi4 cj., , „
£«fe.. Co™., 47 L J Ch ?9Q «- f '° '^'"''""« »■
L.J.Ch.97. ' ■^'''*'' ^- ^'^'«'- <^<""-. 42

(d) 6 & 7 Wm. IV. 0. 71 8 64 ■ WIK ,

108

INTEBPBETATIOK OF 8TATUTK8.

penon conversant with the dirtriot (a). So. a shin
built in England for a foreigner would not be a
Bntwh ship" within the provisione requiriuR
registration and transfer by bill of sale, even while
still the property of the English builder (A). Sec
130, Bankruptcy Act, 18(50 (,), which made a
composition accepted under certain circumstanoos
by creditors binding on all creditors '• whose names
are shown in the debtor's statement," with the
proviso that it "shall not affect any other
creditor '• excluded only non-assenting creditors,
but not creditors whose names were not stated
in the debtor's statement, who, in fact, assented •
for It was understood as not intending to interfere
with the general principle that it is competent to
a person to bind himself by such an assent (rf).
12 Car II. c. 17(«). which enacted that all person
presented to benefices in the time of the Common-
wealth, and who should confirm as directed by the
Act, should be confirmed therein, " notwithstanding;
any act or thing whatsoever," was obviously not

(o) Smith V. Litler (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 154

(ft) Pmo» Bank v. i™a«/„„, 47 L. J. 0. P.' 409. Seo 9 1

Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. '

(<^) 32 & 33 Vict. 0. 71, repealed by 46 & 47 Vict. o. 03 8 IB')

Hot present rules as to compositions, seo 4 & 5 Geo. V. o. .51),'

(d) Cam^ell v. /,„ Thurn, 45 L. J. C. P. 482, discussed in
Bretlnuer v. Brmin (1878), 3 A. C, at p. G89.
(«■) Repealed S. L. E., 1863.

HMTBicrroK T„ sPBcirio oiuwrr.

ISO

IT I'T"- °' °r' '^''"'' ""i 7«2;

toe second occasion was the same • for thi,
wa. obviously beyond the object of the Act ( )
00, It was held that s or r^., t, , ^ '"
Jation Act. 1833, 3 l^^^i^iV^^r^f wrJ"
deprives the owner of lands of the rilf V ^^

(«) Cmivhy V. Phillip,, 1 Sid 222

(*) 31 Oar. n.a.2- A.n ^ K- V o-

' ^^""^ ^ *'««»'«»». B^;.., [1912J 3 K. B. 424!

160

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

by Its general language, to subvert the established
principles of equity on the subject of oonstruotive
notice ; and was therefore to be read as meaning
that the purchaser did not.know or have reason to
believe, either by himself, or by some agent whose
knowledge or reason to believe is, in equity
equivalent to his own (a). Sec. 47, Fines and
Recoveries Act, 1833, which excludes the jurisdic-
tion of the Court of Chancery in regard to curing
defects m the execution of the powers of dis-
position given by the Act to tenants in tail, and
the rectifying under any circumstances of the
want of execution of such powers of disposition,
has been held not to exclude the jurisdiction of
the Court from amending a deed made under the
Act so as to make it effect the intention of the
parties. The object of the Act being to prevent
the application of equitable doctrines so as to
alter the effect of a deed executed according to
the mtention of the parties, and not to exclude
the power of the Court to rectify a deed which, by
an error, did not conform to that intention (A),

The Act which exempts Dissenters from pro-
secution in the Ecclesiastical Courts for not

(") Yarn V. Vane (1872), L. B. 8 Ch. 383
>^n. u. JSl. See also Banke, v. Small, 36 Ch D 716-

BBSTBIOTION TO SPECIFIC OWEOT. Jgl

^^enZZ'il':'''^^^^ Berviee in a

this is a breaTh of , T^ ^^ '^' ^^^'^P- &'

«• 2, which enacted that no suit shn m 1 "^ ^'
menced in any EccIesiastS,aI "Lrt f " "°'"-
nence or brawlin., «». .^ ^ ^°^ luconti-

-nthsi.o:^Soint:so';^r:ff^^ °' ^^^'*

apply only to suits X^^ L^^u^^T'"!'
against laymen as wen „« ! . ^^ ""'""e^''*

wonld theSor?a;2 to a rr ° "'^^" "
•nan, when its ob^'Ttas thrj^^l.' '''''^^
manners, or his 8onl'«T' S. '5°™»*^'»» "f Ws
apply to a sS 7,^',^«'^*^; l"Jt it would not

ment, foreign to th^ t 1 ^^"o^i govern-

«&bys.2Cnt},af .« ' ®' ^'^^ts ««'«^

"1 his possession with the consent

»- now relinqniBh hi, oZ ^ ^""- "' ''^' " """By"*"

Wft«v.£«rj„,„,,31BB2.gg^^

11

162

ISTEBPBETATION OF 8TATUTBB.

of the owner. Bat this proviso is confined to
transactions entered into by a mercantile agent
in the ordinary conrse of his business qtM mer-
cantile agent, and consequently does not validate
a pledge of household furniture, not in the way
of trade, made by an agent to whose possession it
had been entrusted (a). So a Colonial Insolvent
Act, which provided that no distress for rent
should be levied after an order of sequestration
had been made, was construed as limited to
distress on the goods of the insolvent. To apply
it to the goods of a stranger taken on the
insolvent's premises, would have extended the
operation of the Act to effects and consequences
beyond the policy (6). The exception does not,
however, apply in England or, to a modified
extent in Ireland (c). It has been decided that
an Act which empowered the directors of an incor-
porated company to make contracts and bargains
with workmen, agents, and undertakers, would be
construed as conferring on them authority to bind
the company by such transactions without consult-
ing their shareholders ; but not as so altering the
general law as to dispense with those formalities

(o) WaddingUm V. Neale (1917), 96 L. T. 786 Div.; Cohy.
North Wettem Bank (1878), L. E. 10 C. P. 354, p. 372.

(i) BailUm v. Wood, 69 L. J. C. F. 81. See BrocUeiunt v.
Lame, 26 L. J. Q. B. 107.

(c) See 8 Edw. Vn. o. 53.

BE8TBICTI0N TO SPECIFIC OBJECT 183

seal (a), £1X^2^', ""^'^ ''^ ''°'P-*«

any contract made on behalf of" !'• ! ' *^^*
company, within the scope of it«h ^°'"* '^"''^
provided it be made in th/ """'''" ^"^^

were the contracTof , . '"'"''"' ^^•'^ i^ it

as if she were a feme sole " i! i . / '^'^^"^^

relating tc herself pe sonl andT' *° "*""^

her competent to act as a nJt I ^7 °°* '"'"'
oti /iVm (c). ^^* ^^""^ or guardian

AcrLsrSh^^o^T'^' ^™"^^ «"-«-

societyand a^of fts memhf'""*^" '^*"«- ^
principle, held^o be To^td TT *^ ^'''"^
members, as membe,^ TT I ^''P"*^' ^th

(o) Sm* lonrfon Waiemorla Hn ■^ d i , ^

164

IVTBBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

member as debtor, not as member (a): And it
seems clear law in oases within >. 2 of the Build-
ing Society Act, 1884, that the remedy is by
action and not by reference to arbitration (6).
Sec. 62, National Debt Act, 1870, which directs
the Bank of England to keep a list of unclaimed
stock, which is to be " open for inspection at the
usual hours of business," would not entitle a person
who has no bmd, fide interest in any unclaimed
stock to inspect such Ust (c). An Act of the Manx
Legislature, intituled for amending the criminal
law, which declared that its provisions should not
affect the right of the Courts to punish contempts
as before, and that the House of Keys, the Clerk
of the Bolls, and the registrars of Ecclesiastical
Courts, should, " when in the execution of their
respective offices," have the power of punishing
contempts in the same manner as a Comi, was

(o) 10 Go8. rv. 0. 56, s. 27 ; XmUon v. Olover, 19 L. J. Ei.
20. See also Prentice v. London, ii L. J. 0. P. 353 ; WiUU v.
WMs, 61 L. J. Q. B. 606; PaUuer v. Dale, 66 L. J. Q. B. 230
Fleming v. Sdf (1854). 24 L. J. Ch. 29; Mulkem v. Lord,
48 L. J. Ch. 745. But comp. Wright v. Umuirch Imett. Soey.,
46 L. J. Oh. 649, and Hack v. London Provid. Building Socy.
(1883), 52 L. J. Ch. 542; Mmicipal Building Soey. v. Kent,
53 L. J. Q. B. 290.

(fc) 47 & 48 Vict. 0. 41 ; Weitem Suburban do. Building Soey.
V. Martin (1886), 55 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; 17 Q. B. D. 609, C. A.

(e) 33 & 34 Viot. c. 71 ; B. v. Bank of England, 60 L. J. Q. B.
497.

BMTBIOTION TO SPECIFIC OBJECT. Iflfi

wmcn IS the whole aim of the Act; but it is in
other respects valid between the parties so 1 t^
pass the property (d). ' ^ *"

Co?rf°' J^i J«dioature Act, 1873, which gives the
(B^Vrnfr /' °'^''" '"^^ «« thereinafter

Jaheas corp^^Xihlbt^er^l^ti^
the exception), on the ground partly that Ts^
provision was made for enforci4 Jord:, of the

£-™»er (1846). 69 B. B. 417 ; 15 L J. C P 133 ^"""'^ '•
(») This seotion seems to be reoealB,! hv •! s or: „

W m,,o«. V. nm^^ (isaKo L J c pi?: L";^

186

INTBBPBETATION OF STATDTES.

In I

■ , i

li !

Court of Appeal for re-arresting the prisoner, the
order would therefore be futile, and partly that so
important a change of the law was not con-
templated by the Legislature (a). And the pro-
visions of Rules 1 and 14, Order XXXI, E. 8. C.
which entitle a defendant to interrogate a plaintiff^
and to disoc rery of documents, were held at one
time not to extend to the case of infant plaintiffs
who were not subject to such discovery in
Chancery proceedings before the Judicature Acts
were passed (6). But the law is now altered by
Order XXXI, r. 29. ^

In 24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, which consolidates the
law relating to larceny and analogous offences, the
provision (s. 23) which imposes a penalty for
"unlawfully and wilfully" killing a pigeon under
circumstances not amounting to larceny, was
construed as not applying to a man who had in-
tentionally and without legal justification shot his
neighbour's pigeons which were in the habit of
feedmg upon his land ; his object being to prevent a
recurrence of the trespass. His act was " unlawful,"
in the sense that it was actionable ; and it was

(«) Cox V. Hale. (1890), 15 App. Cas. 506; per Lords Hals-
bury L.O., Watson, BramweU, and Maonaghten; diss. Lo.ds
Moms and Field; see also Seaman v. Busley, [1896] 2 Q. B.
344, C. A.

-1 io, ^^"'^ ^" '^°"'"'' ^* '^- ^- ^- '^^- S* ^'•'f'"' V- Scd/ern,
|.lBaiJ p. 139; OurtU v. Mundy, [1892] 2 Q. B. 178.

BE8TBICTI0N TO SPECIFIC OBJECT. 167

rnt"''!^^ '1"^' " '^° ■ ^"* «« **•« "I'ject and
scope of he Act were to punish crimes and not
mere oiTol injuries, the word "unlawfuUy" was
construed as " against the criminal law " (a) So
an Act which visited with fine and dismissal a
road surveyor who demanded or wilfully received
higher fees than those aUowed by the Act, would
not affect a surveyor who, under an honest mistake
of fact demanded a fee to which he was not en-
titled (6); and a sheriff, whose officer had made
a^ overcharge by mistake, would not be liable to
the penalty imposed by s. 29, Sheriffs Act, 1887
upon any sheriff, etc., who takes or demands any
money or reward, under any pretence whatever,
other than the fees or sums allowed (c). An Act
which empowered inspectors to inspect the scales
weights and measures of persons offering goods for
sale, and of seizing any found "light and unjust "
was construed as limited to cases where the in-
justice was prejudicial to the buyer, but as not
applying to a balance which gave seventeen ounces

(«) Taylor y. N.^„ (1863). 32 L. J. M. 0. 186; Co,„j,
. o» u. J. M. 0. 87; Darnel v. Janes, 2 C. P. D 351-

{!>) B. V. Badger, 25 L. J. M. C 81

M 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 55 ; Lee v. Dangar. 61 L. J. Q. B 780 •
Bagge V. Whitehead, 61 L. J. Q. B 778 Sm al.n n
ay*, 26 L. J. M. 0.67. ^■"•™- See al80 £««»«» V.

1«8

INTISRPBKTATION OF STATUTKS.

to the pound, that is. which was unjust against the
seller; since the object and scope of the Act were
limited to the protection of the former (a). So
where a statute maies it an offence in certain oases'
for aj y person to intimidate any other person, but
provides that nothing in the Act shall apply to
seamen, it has been held that the proviso only
operates where the offence is committed hy a
seaman, and not where it is committed against a
seamaa(«). And the enactment in s. ... Bills of
Bale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882, that a bill
of saJe shall be no protection in respect of chattels
which but for such biU of sale would have been
liable to distress for rates and taxes, must be
restno^ed to cases of distress for such rates and
taxes, and has no appUoation where proceedings by
way of execution have been taken in the County
Court under s. 261, Public Health Act, 1875, or
any seo.ion of like character in any subsequent
Act, as It could not possibly have been intended
that a bill of sale should be no protection against

(a) Brooke v. Shad^ate (1873), L. B. 8 Q. B. 352- E.,1
GloucesUrMre B. Co. v. Bartholomew, h. B. 3 Ex 15

60? f M r^r}:':- ^' "'■ '• '^■- ^'^'"-"r-- Co"'^ (1891),
ou U J. M. C. 170. A Beaman within these sections is a person
actually employed on board ship ; and persons whose calling is
he sea. but who are not actnaUy so employed, are not within
the exception ; B. v. Lynch (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 59. See also
Ji- V. City of London Court, 59 L. J. Q. B. 429.

"™«™" TO ,rac„c „„^ jjj

an, exeooHon on a iodffmmif if »k

P.W., to tte o...„ to di^,«, .riri S5
sLSa-ttjors".?/"-^"'

y raraament m the easement (o). So, the Public

Vnderumd, [1892] 1 Q. B. 836 '^"^'<"'™ i<"^. -Board v.

(i) Jiude V. CKorlUm, L E 9 r u in^ ™
(1871), L. B. 7 C. P., at p 224 ' '°* ' '^'^'"<"« ^- ■»»'

i«»<!<«ter (1869). L. B. s 0 p Jr p ^ '^*° *'»"* '•

5 C. P. 269 ■" " «• ° "• ^' 246 ; Brewer v. J»'Go,o«„, L. B.

170

IMTKBPKETATIOH OF STATUTES.

Health Act, 1876, 38 & 89 Viot. o. 66, and the
Metropolis Management Act, 1866, 18 & 19 Vict.
0. 120, which enacted that the streets should
" vest " in the local authority, were construed as
intending not that the soil and freehold should
vest, but only the surface of the soil, and as much
of it in depth as was necessary for doing all that
was reasonably and usually done in streets (a),
and for so long only as it continued to be a
street (A). And it is now definitely provided by
41 & 42 Viot. c. 77, s. 27, that all mines and
minerals under any highway shall continue to
belong to the persons entitled thereto although
the surface may have become vested in an urban
authority. A local authority has therefore no
power under those Acts to excavate the soU and
erect lavatories below the surface of a street (c),
or to prevent wires being carried over the street
at a height which precludes any interference with
the user of the street, and the fact that the street
was originally constructed by turnpike trustees to
whom the fee simple of the site was conveyed

(o) Coterdale v. Charllm (1878), 48 h. J. Q. B. 128. Comp.
Wandmorth Board of Worh v. United Telephone Co., 53 L.J. Q. B.
449; Tunbridge Well, v. Baird, [1896] A. 0. 434; Battenea
Vestry v. Prorineial Electric Co., 68 L. J. Ch. 238. See also
A.-G. V. Dorking, 51 L. J. Ch. 585.

(6) Bolh V. St. George, Southwarl, 14 Oh. D. 788.

(c) Tunbridge WeUt v. Baird, sup.

BBBTBIOnON TO SCOPE OF THE AOT. 171

make, no difference («). But, on the other hand
there can be little doubt that actual propertyT.

iufsher/''^" ^"'''°«°«« - cWel^s
autS; ?^' ^""^ "'^ — * P- to the urL

J^ ^^^^f.^ Vict. c. 86, which enacts thatno
action entered m a local Court of record shaU be
removed into a Superior Court except by eave of
ajudge of a Superior Court in caee^ which IhaU
appear to such judge " fit " to be trid La

unless the action were more fit to be tried in the
superior than the inferior Court {.•)
The same general principle appears to govern

eauS;r r"^"'^^"*'"^^ --* ^^^-^t^^ent;
equinng railway or other companies to make

to persons interested in hereditaments taken or

■mjunously affected - by the companies, fuU com

pensation not only for the land but for ail damage

sustamed by reason of the e^rcise of such p-rUa!

mentary powers, are limited to cases where th"

damage would have been actionable but for the

Act. The general principle relates, therefore, not

^W^K.«^o.„, ... se.era,e B,. v. B™<.<^. [1906]

(c) Bank, y.BoUif,gm:orth {1893), 62 L J Q B 9qq. n^i-
v.i'.«r^,tl911]2K.B.4ia; si L. J. K K 1069

m

IKTIBPUTATION OF BTATVTn.

to the person or btuineu of the party prejudiced by
the nser of the railway in the way anthorised by the
Act after it is opened to the public, but only to
damage reaulting from the construction of the rail-
way and works, to his estate or right in the land in
its original condition, without regard to any use to
which it might be put (a). In other words, tho
object of the enactments is not to create new
rights, but to give compensation for actual injury (A)
where the right of action has been taken away.
And this right being taken away only when the
powers are in all respects duly exercised, the pro-
visions for compensation do not extend to cases

(o) See^wrOookburn O.J., Jfn. Biver Co. v. Jokntm (1860),
2 E. 4 E. 436, p. 443 ; fer WiUes J., BcdcU v. UiJOand R. Co..
L- B. 8 0. P. 94; Hammernuilh B. Co. v. Brand (1868),
L. B. 4 H. L. 171 ; Oiamborlain v. Wai Xnd Jk Crytal Pal.
B. Co.. 9 B. & S. 617 ; Smior v. MetropolUan B. Co., 33 L. J. Ei.
238 ; B. V. Mtrofoliian Board of Worh, 38 L. J. Q. B. 201 ;
CaUdonian B. Co. v. Walker', Tnuleet (1883), 7 App. Gas. 259.
Oomp. Metrcp. Board v. MacCarfkf, L. B. 7 H. L. 343 ; Gla,gmr
B. Co. V. Bunler, h. B. 8 So. App. 78. But see the exception,
fie Stociport B. Co., 33 L. J. Q. B. 2fil, upheld by H. L. in
Coaper-Enex v. Acbm (1889), 88 L. J. Q. B. 594, appUod in
Gomr; Walk. School, v. London, TOlmn, i Southend R. Co.,
69 L. J. Q. B. 162, and iUustrated by Horlon v. Odwfn Ban V. C,
77 L. J. K. B. 216. See also Stroud's Judicial Dioty. and
Snpp., tit. " injuriously affected."

(6) B. V. Poalter (1887), 87 L. J. Q. B. 138; Mireer v.
IiMijwoJ rfc. B. (1903), 73 L. J. K. B. 138.

BMTRionoir TO goora or thi act. m

mortgages of real pronertv • ar.^ I"" """'Ode most

(a) OloikUrv. WOrter. laO.B. N S 790- a.-u^ r-

«»'W* Ba^i^ Co. V. n«„^A* ,%;''i' "P'^^f -
V fl«s«.i, 42 L. J. Bank 1^- WiVn „ °''- "*'

^- J- Q. B. 346; Snu,n v. Jlfc, rrov. Sani m

174

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

^'1

Of a house with its fixtures, mi with a genera]
power of sale over the n^ortgaged property not
authonsmg a separate dealing by the Lrtgagee
^h the fixtures, did not require registration (%
in t"h« J°^^''.'""«>''t. 1876, which provides that
m the admmistration of the assets of a person
dying insolvent, the same rules shaU be applied as
to the respective rights of secured and unsecured
creditors and as to the debts provable, as n
force m bankmpcy. has similarly beenthe subject
of several decisions limiting the scope of i
operation (A). ^ "^

The Metropolitan Building Act, 1855(c), which
gave a nght to raise any party structure authS J
by the Act, on condition of "making good all
damage" occasioned thereby to the%Sohnn"
premises, was held not to authorise the rS "?
a structure which obstructed the ancient Ss of

W. Ch. 270. See also Mar^ y. Meaao^, so L. J. Q. b.

(o) Sarelay, &p., 43 L. J. Ch 449- M„,i
L. J. Ch. 361 ; ra>e,. He, 57 L J. Ch' S J' r? ^
Ware, [1899] 1 Ch. 359. ' "'"' ^ •^"'"^ "■

hul^ *"'"'• ^'' ^' ^- ^- °^ ^°' """^ «■" ""^es cited the,.

BI^STBICTIONTOSCOPBOKTHBACT 17fi

which resulted tm1hlt!*'"°'"f' '^^ ^^t that
having regard to ^1^07^^ ^ "^^*- ^-^.
expression "making Zd ■" J "'"'*'"''^*' *^«
mean that the adLw "^derstood to

restored to their oriSllatrTl""^ *° "«
compensation shoulf^e ^^V;* *^^* Pecuniary

iUustratetheprincirieu^ "'"' ^''*' 1847.

section enactsTa^t "ir"'"*'"'^- ^^''*
answerable for any daLl!. u^"''"^ '' *° »>«
person employed Tit to ! K ? ''^ "' °' ^y "^7
except when^the^essefi! '''r'P'^'°' ^"o^!
licensed pilot oomn ^f , "^"^^^ "^ » dui;
literally, Js it wasT^'o *"'?" ^"^^-^^
made an owner responsiW forT '• ^'""^ ^'^' ''
^ ship to a Pier ,£. u '"-"^ <^°"e by

ground and neoessaX Ih , ^"^ '^^'^ ^^^^
a-l was dashed by "S^ 1^ ^^^"^ ^-^ her crew

But . converso sTuse of r Z^^^'* *^« P'«--
owner was not UaTe on t '''''' '^''^ ^^e
general scope and obie'ct of f.! f"""*^ *''''* *he
^ ooUeot the clausef^h ,"?ir* -- -^-^^

---.calharbourbi;t!dtri:S
33. ^^' -"""""'• ^-""(Wa), 421,. J.M.C.

176

njTBBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

! ■ I'ii

if!

m

of procedure to the nudertakets of snob works;
and that the section did not create a new liability,
but only facilitated proceedings against the regis-
tered owner when damages were recoverable (a).

On this general principle of construction, a
statute which made in unqualified terms an act
criminal or penal, would be understood as not
applying where the act was excusable or justifiable
on grounds generally recognised by law. Thus, a
statute which imposed three months' imprison-
ment and the forfeiture of wages on a servant who
" absented himself from his service " before his
term of service was completed, would necessarily
be understood as confined to cases where there
was no lawful excuse for the absence (6). A
statute which made it felony "to hieak from
prison," would not apply to a prisoner who broke
out from the prison on fire, not to recover his
liberty, but to save his life (c) ; and one which
declared it piracy to " make a revolt in a ship,"
would not include a revolt necessary to restrain
the master from unlawfully killing persons on
board (d), even if it could be justly called a revolt.

(o) Biter Wear Commimionere v. Adameon, 2 App. Cas. 743.

(6) 4 Geo. rV. 0. 84, g. 3 (repealed by 38 & 39 Viot. o. 86,
B. 17) ; Turner, Be, 15 L. J. M. C. 140. But see Bider v. Wood, 29
L. J. M. 0. 1. See also 21 Hen. VHI. o. IS ; Gibs. Cod. 887.

(c) 2 Inst. 560.

((i) 11 & 12 Will. III. 0. 7, B. 9; B. e. Boee, 2 Cox, 329; The
Shepherdm, 5 Bob. C. 262.

WS^S BBA IK CEmmAI, LAW. 177

leave "s X^J^r^, 7^^ °^ hi« officers'^

for knowingly aTd '1? u '^'' '' "°* ^"'•^"table
ing the m£ly "^""^ °^«*™°*i^ and retard-

e.ctpfa'Jr ^"'' r !• f!*^ °'^'^<^' - with some

ever comprehensive and unqualified J t' " T
language, is usuaUy understnn^ , , '° ''^

ing that this element s2°t ^^""y"^'^-

"nless a contrary ttenti^A^ '""^"""^ ^*° ^*'
plied- "thfi ac7 , ®f™° •'e expressed or im-

U'is « refit irr- *'^--

offenoe"M A s atn^ f ^°*''' ^*° e^e^V
general tJrms e^^f ^ "'''''''''' '^"^^ '"
committed a certd^ 1 I ',?'^ P'"°'» wh°
felon, would n'l::,; ,t°";^ "« ^^>^«d a
-i^ot, ora,Jte,;^^-<^7-en,or
reason (d) whethnr „ ""^g the loss of his
I ) Whether caused by intoxication or any

(a) Biwordv. TreveUici 34 r T r. r. „
(1801), 3 Esp. 269. ' ^^ "'■ '^^ ^- ^ ^ ^'«'<">d v. a^A,„

12

178

INTBBFBETATION OF BTATUTBB.

^M

E.';J.pi:l

other Yoltmtary act (a) ; for it wonid be nnreason-
able to infer from the mere use of an unqualified
teriD. and intention to repeal the general principle
that such persons are not capable of a criminal
intention. Drunkenness, although producing tem-
porary insanity, is no defence to a crime (b), but
where the crime is such that the intention of
the accused is a constituent element, it may be
taken into consideration in determining whether
the accused formed the intention necessary to
oonstitnte the crime in question (c).

On the same principle, an act done under an
honest and reasonable belief in the existence of a
state of things, which if true would have afforded
a complete justification both legally and morally
for such act, would not, in general, fall within a
statute which prohibited it under a penalty ((f).
Thus, a woman who married a second time within
seven years after she had been deserted by her
husband, unaer a bonA fide belief on reasonable
grounds that he was dead, would not be guilty of
bigamy («). A licensed victualler who supplies

(a) fi. V. Uoare, 3 C. & K. 319.

(6) 1 Hale, 32; but see £. v. JHiiadi! (1909), 78 L. J. (E. B.) 476.

(c) B. V. Doherty (1887), 16 Cox, 306. Ckmp. Weit v. Frana>,
inf. p. 290.

(<0 See ex. gr. Lee v. Simptm (1847), 16 L. J. 0. P. 105;
Beade T. Ckm^wtl (1862), 11 C. B. N. S. 479.

(«) 24 & 25 Viot. c. 100, s. 87; S. v. Toho,, (188'J), 58
L. J. M. C. 97.

MENS BKA m OBIMIKAL LAW.

179

bquor to a police constable whom he bond Me
beheves to be off duty, is not guilty of supplying
liquor to a police constable while on duty within
s. 16 (2), Licensing Act, 1872, repealed by s. 78 (16)
Licensing (ConsoKdation) Act, 1910(a). And
under a statute which made it felony for persons
tumultuously assembled to demolish a church or
dwelhng, they could not be convicted if the demo-
htion was done in the hml fide assertion of a
legal nght, though there was a riot in doing it (6)
So, If a man out down a tree or demolished a
house standing on land of which he was in undis-
turbed possession, and believed himself to be the
owner, he would not be punishable under statutes
which prohibited such acts in general terms:
though it turned out that his title was bad and
that the property was not his (e). If he demanded
goods with threats, bond fide believing that they
belonged to him, he would not be guilty of rob-
bery, though civilly liable {d). If he forcibly took

O^fJ'TZ ^' °: *'*•"' f^^^^J ^ * «• 91«^ but con^p.

/i,'p ';?'"^' ^ ^°°- °- °- 252 ; S. 0. nom. S. v Lang.
/«vf,C»r.&M.602. See fl. v. Badger, sup. p. 167.

W S. V. Bumabf, 2 Lord Baym. 900.

(J) iJ. V Ball (1828). 3 C. & P. 409. See also B. v. K„i<,K

^ef»^t at cards a the »«,«i Ji,. faeUef that prosecutor bad

180

INTBBPBr ^TION OF 8TATUTB8.

a girl under sixteen from the custody of her
guardian, in the honest but mistaken belief that
he WM, himself, invested with that character, and
acted simply in the exercise of his right as
guardian, he would not be guilty of the criminal
offence of abduction, though that is defined as
" unlawfully taking a girl under sixteen out of
the possession and against the will of the person
having the lawful care of her" (a). A man who
fished in a tidal river, in the assertion of the
g'eneral right which the law gives.to fish in such
rivers (A), and in ignorance or in contestation of
the exclusive right of fishing in it claimed by
another, would not be liable to conviction for
"unlawfully and wilfully" fishing in the private
fishery of another (c). On this principle may
perhaps rest the general rule of law that the
jurisdiction given to justices of the peace, to try
an offence summarily, is ousted when a claim of
right or title is set up on reasonable grounds (rf) ;

(«) B. V. Tinkler (1859), 1 P. 4 P. 613. But see B. v. Privet,
44 L. J. M. 0. 122, inf. p. 181.
(6) Carter v. Murmt, i Burr. 2168.

(c) B. V. Slimpton, 32 L. J. M. C. 208. See sup. pp. 166-
167. But see Hudim v. ITBae, 33 L. J. M. C. 66.

(d) Per Blackburn J., While v. FeatI, L. B. 7 Q. B. 353;
Beece v. Miller, 51 L. J. M. 0. 64; Mann v. Nurte (1901), 17
T. L. B. 669; and as to the whole question, see Muaiellv. Bimli
(1876), 35 L. T. N. S. 486.

m i

MBVS BE* W CBIMWAL LAW Jgl

;■', Son rr.r^rir. '"•"■"•

troversy and oonfl,«f nf j • ? ® *° '"""^ "<">-

of thesi delTn? :ro::ri ,V "'^^'"''^
to look at the object of eloh tJ 'V« '^.^''^^^^y
consideration to sen Uft ^^''^ " "'"^«'

led«e is offh! "^" '"'^ ^°^ f"*' know-

asseverations. conrJ; "". '" f^P^— and
older (*). The o£t !? tl T 'f ''' ^"^

Peru (c;. if as it has been JiaI-i .

p. 180. ^ "^^ ""■ ^^ •l"' -8- V. Timet, sup.

^^'ii"- Stephen J., ij. v. r<,«,„ (1889), 23 Q. B. D.

18S

INTBBPBETATrON OF 8TATUTB8,

'Km

believed to be the owner (a), he would yet be liable
to conviction if he trespassed on land which he
believed to be part of the property over which he
had the license, but which was in fact the property
of a different person (ft), the statute infringed not
being a mere criminal statute, but one passed for
the purpose of protecting tLa peculiar rights of
those entitled to shoot game(c). The Contagious
Diseases (Animals) Act, 1869, and an Order in
Council under it, which imposed a penalty on any
person having in his possession an animal affected
with a contagious disease who did not give notice
of it " with all practicable speed " to a constable,
was held to apply only where the person knew
that the animal was diseased (d). Where a rail-
way Act «^ch "for the better prevention of
accidents or injury which might arise" on the
raUway "from the unsafe and improper carriage
of certain goods," enacted that every person who
should send gunpowder or similarly dangerous
articles by the railway should mark or declare
their nature, under a penalty enforceable by im-
prisoTaent, it was held that guUty knowledge was

(a) 1 & 2 WiU. IV. c. 32, B. 30 ; S. v. Cridlaad, 27 L. J. M. C. 38,

(6) Morden v. Porler, 29 L. J. M. 0. 313. Ab to what will coc

•tituto a valid defence, see Dickiruon v. Ead (1914), 78 J. P. 32G.

(c) Watltint v. Xajor, 44 L. J. M. 0. 164.

(d) SicholU V. Ball, 42 L. J. M. C. 105. For the converse of
this proposition, see Moaiell Brot. v. L. dST.W.B Co [19171
2K. B. 837. • • •. I J

MENS BBA IK OBIMIVAL LAW. 188

essential to a oonviotion, and that an agent who
had sent some oases of dangerous goods by a raU-
way, without mark or declaration, not only in
ignoranoe of their nature, but misinformed of it
by his prmoipal in answer to his inquiries, had
not incurred the penalty ; on the ground that his
Ignoranoe under suoh oiroumstanoes. proved the
absence of ««„ rea (a) ; and yet he was under no
legal duty to send the goods, and he might have
refused to do so without actual inspection A
similar conclusion was come to where, although
there was no knowledge, there were means of
knowledge which were neglected. Under 9 & 10
WUL III 0. 41 (6), which after reciting that con-
viotions for embezzling Government stores were
found impracticable, because direct proof of the
immediate taking could rarely be made, but only
that the goods were found in the possession of
the accused, and that they bore the King's mark
enacted that the person in whose possession goods
so marked should be found, should forfeit the
goods and ^200, unless he produced at the trial an
official certificate of the occasion of their coming
into his possession; it was held by the Court for

of ta p„pos,t.on, see MouseU v. L. * If. r. Sy. Co., [1917]
Viot. c. 25 (Pubho Stores Protaotion Act).

ff".

184

IVTEBPRBTATIOK OF STATUTItS.

C^wn Case. Beaemd, that such a pe«on was not
hable to convictioD, in the absence of proof that
he knew (though he had reasonable means of
knowing) that the good, bore the Government
mark (a). This decision, however, might be ques-
tioned on the authority of another case, which
was not cited, where the Court of Exchequer held
that a dealer in tobacco was liable to the penalty
imposed by the statute for having adulterated
tobacco m his possession, though ignorant of the
adulteration (A). It may be doubted whether the
hteral construction of the language, enforcing
vigilance for the protection of the public from
danger or robbery, by visiting negligence {c) as well
as misdeed with penal consequences, would not

q n"' ^J' *''*• ^ ^- ^- ^- °- ""; ■»• V. wmm.ttnm)

tiU J. M. 0. 49. See also Bbptm v. Thirluiaa. 9 L. T. N 8 327
where a person found to " have m his possession the young o^
salmon m contravention of s. 16, Salmon fishery Aot, 1861

wrSmt. ' '* "" " '°^'^'^ ^' "°' ^°^ '"o «»^

(6) S 4 6 Vict c. 93 ; amended by 41 4 43 Vict. c. 16, b. 25 •

LJ» f'f J'^*^^' '' ^- '■ ^- 0- 122. See also ^
Pwke B., Burnh, v. BoUHt, 16 M. & W. 644; i} v TrZ
2 Bast, P. C. 831 ; B. v. Dixon, 16 B. B. 381.

W Cfempare fl. v. Stephen, (1866), 36 L. J Q B "51 •
Coppery. Moore (Xo. 3), [1898] 2 Q. B. 306 ; C„«™,-,„Wr« „/

f ^v w''^ ' ^^^'>' ^' ^- •'• ^- °- "»• A- C; ilfW/ V.
L. d N. W. B. (1917), 87 L. J. K. B. 82.

«■»« MA W CWMIKAL LAW ,„

^Th^^r ol'S"^ '^^^ *^' intention.

«p-ts whfch. X t x:;* '°'""''*"' °^

exuded from tL. wood ,Z „!? w . *'""*"'• ^''^«
of a cask, does nlj^l^ ^u"""**^ "* *^« •'ottom
the Fiii^oe ir iZ L?l™' """« n»der
perwnshallno Ulf; ^ '"°^'''"' t^at "a
;je Pn^se S eStl^ ,^,7j--^0'
the wood thereof ■ n, j, "'f.*P»nM absorbed in

spirits extracted fmm +1, y,™*"* process, or any
A* ~"»o™a from the wood of any cask " /.\
At the present time there i, .1 \ ^^•
««>nioipaI Jaw which hlwl f '^ ."^y of
terms as to make L . ■ ^"^^ '° ""oh
»- rea. B^tws whS °"'^'*' ^*^°-t '"'y
the interest JtZ^^!:'^'' "^"tions in
P«bUo are gener^v L °°'^^enienoe of the

breach of ZZ I ZTT'^' *"•* *^« ""ere
offence. Unde^s 17 ?T d" °°°«*'*°te an

Which empo^:i^aStirfo\^errir'
tion of unwholesome meat whi„r *""'■

^ale and intended for f^od * t " '^^"'"^ ^°'

imprisomnent on thl vetTi r°'' " ^''^ °'

7-4:j^=zst-rtS

W6I & 62 Viot 0. 10,, 4„n. p ^.
^■^- K. B. 717. ''^'' *<*•»*»• V. iJuon, 73

1«

INTBKriUCTATinN Or BTATUm.

he had aotnal personal knowledge of the condition
of the meat, the object of the enactment being
that people ahoold not be ezpoied to the danger
of eating poison (a). So the sale of an article
of food or a drug not of the natnre, substance,
and quality of the article demanded, is to the
prejudice of the purchaser and is an offence
under s. 6, Sale of Pood and Drugs Act, 1875,
though the seller (who may be a corporation) was
unaware of the fact (b). On similar grounds it has
been held that a publican would be guilty of an
offence against s. 13, Licensing Act, 1872 (repealed,
s. 76, Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910), if he
sold liquor to a drunken person, even though the
purchaser had given no indication of intoxicatioii,
and the publican did not know that he was in-
tozicated(c). He would not, however, in such a

(a) 88 * 39 Viot. o. 66 (extended by 68 A 64 Viot. o. 69);
Blaker v. TilbUme, [1894] 1 Q. B. 846 ; gee »Uo Boib, v. Wh-
(Unler Corp., (1910), 79 L. J. K. B. 1123 ; aad see the interesting
case of WilliamM v. AOm, [1916] 1 K. B. 436.

(6) 88 4 89 Viot. o. 63 ; £«Uf v. AnuUad (1888), 20 Q. B. D.
771; Pearl, (hrutm v. Ward, [1903] 2 K. B. 1; Pain v,
Bougktmod, 24 Q. B. D. 363 ; Dglt v. Gower, [1892] 1 Q. B.
930; Spier, <t Pond v. Bmnett, i[1896] 2 Q. B. 65; Parker v.
Adler, [1899] 1 Q. B. 20; OmtUer v. Soot, [1901] 2 K. B. 290.
In Smitkie, v. Bridge, [1902] 2 K. B. 13, tlie appellant was
held to have been rightly convicted for eelling new milk de-
ficient in fat, although the milk had not been adulterated:
■ee also FittpaMek v. Kelly, inf. p. 662.

(c) Cu»dy v. Le Coeq, 13 Q. B. D. 307 ; but mmp. Shernu v.

"BlfB BKA IN nUMIMAL LAW. m

ITm^ f"?*^^' permitting dmnkennes. on Wb

•oope of hi, employment. ««-> 1.-,^., ,„ ,, aJ^^^^
perwn. though in the al o-.c, o' .u ....tTto
^e^e« of the pubi:. > ,. ,.e ,u.Hoau i. .Sj of
an offenoe onder that «. cf.,u (.). Tl. . venoe of
reoeivu.g two or mo.. „„.,„, j^ ,, ^^J^jJ
house « committed, tuo-i-h <Uo oersane w7re
reoeaved in the belief, baeed o. r....:.u.ZZ.,
^at they were not Inna.: (.). xJhones
behef by a hconsee that a bottle is properly sealed
» no defence to an information under^ tZf^l

pealed, b. 68, Licensing (ConBolidation) Act, 1910)

u n fact the bottle is not properly sealed (rf). Bu

.hcenseholderwho has not delegated hisauthority
nor concorred at a sale, cannot be convicted nndj;
the same section by reason of a barman selling to

W &m,ernt v. Wade (1894), 68 L. J. M 0. 126

53 Vict ! « ^'V- r "• "• "^"^ an.1 re.»aot«l by
53 V.ot c. 6, s. 316; If. v. B<.*<y (isso), 49 L. J. M. C. 45

■">»« V. Skemn^mt, 77 L. J. K. B. 771.

188

INTBRPBETATION OF STATUTES.

a person under fourteen (a). Under a special Act
which empowered a gas company to make the
necessary works for its business, subject to a
penalty if it should " suffer any washings to be
conveyed or to flow" into any stream or place,
corrupting or fouling the water, the company was
held liable to the penalty in a case where the
washings percolated through the bottom of its gas
tank and polluted a well, without the knowledge
of its servants (b).

The principle that unless the Legislature has
indicated the contrary intention, the infliction of
penalties is to be presumed to be confined to cases
where the offender has the mens rea, is well illus-
trated by those cases in which it has been sought
to render a master penally responsible for the acts
of his servant. Thus a sheriff, though unquestion-
ably liable in damages for the act of his oflBoer in
seizing things exempt from seizure, would not be
liable to the penalty imposed bys. 29, Sheriffs Act,
1887, in respect of such wrongful act(c); and a
surveyor could not be convicted of having caured
a heap of stones to be laid upon a highway, and of

(o) Emary v. Nollolh (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 629. As to
exoluBion of children from bars of UoenBed houses, see Childrens
Act, 1908, B. 120; PUkington v. Bou, [1914] 3 K. B. 321.

(ft) Bipiim v. Binningham Gat Co., 30 L. J. Ex. 60.

(c) 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 55, s. 29 ; Bagge v. Whitehead, sup. p. 167,
following Lee v. Dangar, sup. p. 167.

MKNS BEA IN CWMISAL LAW. JgB

repain^g the road, the surveyor hav^ bo ' Id

support a original charg!' ^^a^;, V;^^ ^
oooup^er of trade premises within the JZLus

« was held that evidence of personal neriisenoA
was ess«.t^, and that evideni of ne.U^ZZ
tue part of a servant was insnffioientfj) No

:tt 'a ''"^ n""""^""" '^ '^'^^ -ha ever a
^rvant does m the course of the employment
w^th which he is entrusted, and as part oTTt ^
the master's act, unless the contrary be show^ M

iXT T ?r ^"^^^'^ "^ pena;X i

own act, unless he can saow that what was done

(k) ChuHoln, V. iJo„ft„„ a889), 58 L. J. M C 133 R„f '
C™»™o»<i V. mchohon (1915). 79 J. P. 525 ^•" '"*

('■) A.-O. V. Sidrfon 35 B B 701 • »
I'' B- 7 Q. B. 474. ' *"•'""' "' ^*™y'' (1872).

ISO

INTKBPRBTATION OF BTATDTM.

1;

I:

*M!i!

was in oontravention of his orders. On this
gronnd a baker has been held liable to a penalty
for selling bread in which his servant had mixed
alum (a); and a carrier, trhose waggoner had
carried in the carrier's waggon game not sent
by a qnalified person (when the 6 & 6 Anne,
0. 14, was in force), was properly convicted of
carrying the game (5); a licensed victualler was
held penally responsible, under s. 16, 35 & 36
Vict. c. 94 (repealed, s. 78 (16) Licensing (Con-
solidation) Act, 1910), for the act of his servaut
in knowingly supplying liquor to a constable ou
duty(c), the act being within the scope of the
servant's employment (d) ; and where gaming had
taken place upon licensed premises to the know-
ledge of a servant who had been placed in charge
of the premises, it was held that the licensed
person had "suffered" gaming to be carried ou
on the premises within the meaning of 8. 17,
Licensing Act, 1872 (repealed, s. 79, Licensing
(Consolidation) Act, 1910), though he had no
knowledge of the gaming, and had not connived

(o) S. V. Dixan (1814), 15 K. B. 381 ; 3 M. & S. 11.

(b) B. v. Manh, 2 B. & C. 717 ; but see per Brett J., 1!. v.
Prince (1875), 44 L. J. M. C. 122.

(c) MttUint V. ColUtu (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 67. See ulso
Brown v. Foot, 61 L. J. M. C. 110 ; but see Shcrras v. Dr
IMzen (1895), sup. p. 186.

(d) Per A. L. Smith J., Newmun v. Jonii, 17 Q. B. D. 1J7.

iJJi

\illi?."-^ '-' ■::>.'*i'^^f:^J\ii\t(^

MENS KBA IN CBIMINAL LAW. I9I

at it (a); and under the Merchandise Marks Act,

mtian the general scope of their employment
ell goods to which a false trademark 0^2

heir master's orders ; unless the master can^w
hat he has acted in good faith a^d done eve^
thmg he reasonably could to prevent the c^-
mission of offences by his servLs. That Ho
2 I'nder this Act the biuden of proof is shi^d
and IS no in accordance with the ordinary ^es
a^d principles of criminal law, in that th7pr7s
ntion has not to prove a „^, rea; but I the
defendant IS able to prove an absence of any „1

in these and other like cases were based upon

te view of the Court that, having regard to Se

anguage, scope, and objects of^he Acts tie

Legis Iat„e intended to fix criminal responsibihl

Le course of their employment, although such
acts were not authorised, and might have been

- Boh, 43 J. R m.' ' " " ■^''*""' "■ ^ ■ ^™*"«
(') 50 & 51 Viot. c. 28 s 9 (91 • o^

[18981 3 O B -infi ,., " ' ^'^" "■ *"<'™ C*"- 2),

I "OJ ^ y. B. 306; Chrutie v. Cooper riSOOl 2 O W «oo

1 K B 57 ^^ ' ^'^""" "■ -P'^™. 11914^

IM

INTBRPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

expressly forbidden. But as soon as it appears
that there is no delegation of authority to the
servant (a), his act cannot be considered as that
of the master, and it is necessary to show that the
latter had personal knowledge of the incriminating
circumstances in order to ensure conviction. Thus
the committee of a ciub cannot properly be con-
victed of selling liquor without a proper license,
where the sale has been by the steward contrary
to the express orders of the committee, and with-
out their knowledge or assent (6); and where
gaming had taken place upon licensed premises
to the knowledge of a servant who was employed
upon the premises, but there was no evidence to
show any connivance or wilful blindness on the
part of the licensed person, and it did not appear
that the servant was put in charge of the
premises, it was held that the justices were right
in refusing to convict the licensed person of
suffering gaming on the premises (c). Where,
however, the facts are such as to constitute prim'i

(a) See per Collins J., Somtrtet v. Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 576,
referring to the judgment of Stephen J., in Bond v. ijiom
(1888), 21 Q. B. h. '.49, at p. 255 ; 57 L. J. M. 0. 105.

(6) Neieman v. Joni 17 Q. B. D. 132 ; but the person actually
selling is liable, Caldaell v. Beihell, [1913] 1 K. B. 119.

(c) 35 & 36 Viot. 0. 94, s. 17, repealed, s. 79, Licensing (Con
solidation) Aot, 1910 ; Sotneriet v. Bart (1884), 53 L. J. M. C.
77. See also Mamey v. Uorrit, 63 L. J. M. C. 185 ; and
comf. Homenct v. Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 574.

^nMis«ae7i£'/"-ir.>atffi!!Bn^.

MIW8 PKA nr OMMINAL LAW. 198

/<«^ a case, which though not amonntinR to
positive proof of knowledge on the part of the
hoensed person, nevertheless indicate connivance
jn^ indication is evidence upon which a ma^'
^ ra.y find knowledge (a). But, on the otSr

iTt r\ ^u '"""^'^ ^^^^ '^ ""''t^r would
not be hable to be convicted for an unauthorised

w Lrrt*'? "'''^ "^ ^'^ — * - ""e
w ght of sacks of coal (*); secus, if the represen-

Srip^^r^^*'^---*^'^*^— of
There is a class of cases where the absence of

«.d that IS where the ofience has been committed
m Ignorance or misapprehension of the law, and the
St tuteprohibHng the act does not expressly make

element of the offence (d). For instance, though a
person in possession of naval stores is not liable to
conviction unless he knows that they bear the
Govennnent mark, he would not esclpe on the

oTsl *'^*/;^'V°* ''"°"*^^' the possession
of such marked goods was prohibited. A man who

(«) Lee V. Taylor (1912), 23 Cox, C. C. 220

W) See «& V. Kellu, 30 L. J M r q'i • n • ,
2 n P !■> oE. TT "" ij « • m. L,. da Daniel v. /oneii

C. P. D. 361 , B«nler v. War., [1899] 1 Q. B. 635. '

13

104

INTBBPaHTATION OF BTATCm.

u
I'

4f

unlawfnUy fished in a non-tidal river, or trespaaaed
on land in search of game, would not eaoape
conviction because he honestly believed that the
public was entitled to fish or shoot there (a); such
a right not being known to the law. An apprentice
who absented himself from his master's service,
did not escape the penal consequences by proving
that he had done so in the honest though erroneous
belief, founded on his lawyer's advice, that his
indentures were void, and that he was consequently
at liberty to leave his service (4). So, a cabman
who persists in placing his cab on the premises of
a railway company, after being requested to remove
it, is penally liable for " wilfully trespassing and
refusing to quit," though he was under the per-
suasion, which was unfounded, that there existed
a legal right to place his vehicle there (c).
It is necessary, as regards mens rea, not to

(a) Bud«m V. McBae, 33 h. J. M. 0. 68; Shnith v. Cbofe
(1915), 79 J. P. 245; LeaU v. Vine, 30 L. J. M. C. 207;
Bargrtmes v. Diddam, M L. J. M. 0. 178 ; WatUn, v. Major,
Id. 164 ; Pearee v. Seotcher, 9 Q. B. D. 162. See also Tk
Charhtta, 1 Dod. 387.

{!>) 4 Geo. IV. 0. 34, s. 3 ; repealed by 38 & 39 Viot. c. 86,
s. 17. Cpoper V. Simmms (1862), 31 L. J. M. C. 138, an
apprenticeship to a ooiforation ia valid : Bnrrdey Ac. Society v.
Carton, [1891] 1 Q. B. 75.

(c) FotUger v. Steadman, 42 L. J. M. 0. 3. Comp. Jonet v.
Taylor, 1 E. & B. 20. There are no longer privileged cabs at
London railway stations.

"»" ""A W CBIMIlfAL LAW. 195

hand, the absence of !!L ,". °° *^^ °^^r

facts which, if true, wo2 i* V« T' °^
cent (a). A staf nf « Ja • u , **'® **'* i^i^o-

be vio/atedt t^^^^^ ^T''^ ^' ^""^^
evil intention o" ev«„ I T '^°°" ^t^""*
good motiv ' JU L"ot: *^ ''^"^'"'^ "" "^
offence of appllTl fol f .° "°°'*^*°*« *h«

goods with intrfo LSa *',:;L'r ^^-'^ . *°

of the Merchandise Marks a;*:^^ s gmT^
not necessary that there should be k^v iii'/ • "

sels an obsoenA Lw TT®* '" '^° » man who

W 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 38 • ao™, V ^i.7 .
(1889), 59 L. J. M. C 13 • ' «"!? „ ^*'*°"'* 0«»P««fcr Co.

190

INTBRPBICTATtON OF STATUm.

I

of the reader, bnt to expose the tenets of a
religious sect (a). The master of a ship who, rmder
general instmotions to complete his cargo on the
Ueat terms, traded with the enemy, would be guilty
or ;he crime (A) of barratry, though he acted solely
a:i<ier the motive of serving his employer to the
'jest advantage (c). ■ A railway company which had
suffered a weighing machine in its possession to
continue out of repair for a fortnight, so that it
indicated more than the true weight, was held to
fall within the enactment which imposed a penalty
for being found in possession of a weighing maohine
incorrect or otherwise unjust ; although its servants
had orders to make a due allowance for the defect,
when using it (d). So under s. 31 of the repealed
Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which enacted that where
an undischarged bankrupt obtained credit to the

(o) S. V. HieUin (1868), 37 L. J. M. 0. 89; SUeU v. Branmt,,
41 L. J. M. C. 86. Comp. Lewu v. Fermor, 18 Q. B. D. 532,
qnestioDed by Hawkms J., in Ford v. Wiley, 23 Q. B. I). 203 ;
as to publication of obscene piotniss or advertisements, see R. r.
De Mamey, [1907] 1 E. B. 888.

(i) Talle/o y. Wheeltr, 1 Oovrp. 143. As to meaning of the
word memy, see SocUU Anongme Bdge det Minet ^Aljuilrel v.
Anglo-Belgian Agency (191S), 84 L. 3. Ch. 849, G. A.

(c) Earle T. Soucroft, 9 B. B. 386, 8 East. 126.

(d) 5 & 6 WiU. IV. 0. 63, s. 28 (repealed), 41 & 42 Vict. c. 49,
8. 25 ; S. W. B. Co. v. Bailie (1864), 34 L. J. M. 0. 31. Sea
also Lane v. BendaU, [1899] 2 Q. B. 673 ; London C. C. v.
Payne (Ho. 2), [1906] 1 K. B. 410.

BBBTBIOnOKB OF OPMATIOir. 197

«tent Of ^20 and upwards from any person
mthout mfonning such pe„on that he IT^
^d^oharged bankrupt, he should be g^ry "f^
misdemeanour, it was no defence to K thaJ
"'^:««,°o intention to defraud (a) ^'

th«o? ?' " ""^ ''"'^ ^' "^^ »»•»* i" construing

"i^^^^^^ " !'°"1'°"«'* ^y «-h a word as

apphes, but If ,t is not, the better opinion is th«
ewlusion of that doctrine. ^ ''^

Jts object and not to disturb the existing law
%ond what the object requires, it is constfed aT
operatave between certain persons, or undS ce^

though the language expresses no such oircui
-nptjon of the field of its operation (6) ~
P^mUy repealed Act of 1864(«). for LitanTe

trust, the declaration should be registered as

W i: i 18 viot. 0. 86, 8.' a.

10S

niTBBPBBTATIOK OF BTATCTBI.

well as the bill, on pain of invalidity against the
assignee in the event of exeontion or bankraptoy,
was held to apply only to declarationB of trast by
the grantee for the grantor, but not to tmsts
declared by the grantee in favour uf other persons.
The object of the Act being only to protect
creditors against sham bills of sale, and snch
object being completely attained by requiring the
registration of the first-mentioned trusts, while
the registration of any others would have been
foreign to the purposes of the Act (a). Sec. 18,
Bills of Sale Act, 1882, which prohibits the
removal of the goods for five days after sei^iure, ia
confined to the protection of the person giving the
bill, and gives the landlord no right to complain
of an earlier removal (b) ; and s. 3, 11 Geo. II. c. 19,
which gives to landlords a right of action to
recover double the value of goods fraudulently
carried off the premises to avoid a distress, applies
to goods of the tenant only, and not to those of a
stranger (c). So, the provision in 8 & 9 Vict.
0. 109, which, after making all wagers null and

(a) BitU V. Shepherd (18S8), 1 R & E. 191 ; BMtuon t.
CoUingwood, 34 L. J. 0. P. 18. See also Hodtm v. Sharjpt,
10 B. B. 324.

(6) 45 & 46 Viot. o. 43 ; Lane v. Tyler (1887), 56 L. J. Q. B.
461 ; Tomlintm v. CotuoUdated Credit Corp. (1890), 24 Q. B. D.
136.

(o) ZVmJiiuon v. Contolidaied Credit Corp., sup.

■raXBIOnOK TO THB SUBJIOI. IQQ

i^d enact, that no .nit .hall be maintained to
»P^ to the wager from .uing to recover hh

aT* iS f^ '»PP«)priated(a), and the Gaming
Act, 1892, has not altered the lawin this respect (b).

ll™L^ 1"'"i"P dealings (4 So, the general
angnage of s. 299, Merchant Shipping Act, 1864
(repealed, s. 419 (3), Merchant Shipping Act. i^
wbch provided that, if damageThould a^isfto
person or property from non-observance of the

d^'t^"/;t "'''"'' be considered as the "wilful
default of the person in charge of the deck at
the time, was confined, by a dne regard to the
object m view, to the regulation of the rights of

Wore held not to affect the relations between
the master and his owners, so as to make the

(«) Bampden v. Wahh, 46 L. J, Q R ass ■ n; t

(1877). 46 L. J Ex 721 V A « 7 „ ' '"''* "• "'^<''

Stock Exchange (No. 2), 66 L. J Q B 17H- n- 7^ .

^nge v. «ra«*a„, 66 L. J Q B 429 " """ *'"*

M ^ L ^- • ^^°* ™™''' t^«»J 2 Q. B. 497. C. A

('•) Keen v. PHce. [1914] 2 Ch. 98.

MiaoCOPY IISOIUTION TBI CH*«T

(ANSI ond ISO TEST CHABT No. 2)

^ d?Py§njM^GE

m

1653 Eosf Mafn StfMt
(716) 288- 5989 -Fo.

200

INTEBPBETATION OP STATUTES.

former guilty of barratry, wh^oh would have been
altogether foreign to the scope of the Act (a).
The 16 & 17 Vict. c. 30, which, after reciting that
it was expedient to mak? provision for preventing
the vexatious removal of indictments into the
Queen's Bench, enacted that whenever a certiorari
to remove one should be awarded at the instance
of the prosecutor, he should enter into a recog-
nisance to pay the costs if unsuccessful, and that
if the recognisance was not entered into, the
indictment should be tr^'ed in the Court below,
was held inappUcable to a prosecutor who removed
an indictment against a corporate body which was
unable to appear by attorney in the inferior Court.
In such a case, the removal of the indictment was
a matter of necessity, not option, for it could not
be tried by the inferior Court, since the defendant
could not appear there ; and it would have been
unjust to extend the provision to a case clearly
beyond the scope of the Act, which, by its preamble
showed, was only to check vexatious removals (4).
The words of the Arbitration Act, 1889, which
enact that in certain cases an award is to be

(a) Grill V. General Iron Screw Co. (1866), 35 Jj. J. C. P. 321,
37 Id. 205 ; Price v. Unim Lighterage Co. (1903), 72 L J K B
374.

(6) B. V. Uancheater, 26 L. J. M. 0. 65. S66 also Craven v.
Smith (1869), 38 L. J. Ex. 90. Overruled as to power of under-
sheriff to certify for costs, Co* v HUl (1892), 67 L. T. 26.

BE8TBICTI0N TO THE SUBJECT. 201

"equivalent to the verdict of a jury," have been
construed as not importing aU the incidents of a
verdiot. .X. gr the right of appeal on the ground
hat It ,s agamst the weight of evidence, but only
he immedrnte consequences, e^. gr. the mode of
execution (a).

The enactment (16 & 17 Vict. c. 59, s. 19) which
made presentment of any draft on a banker pay-
able to order or on demand, if purporting to be in-

authority to the banker to pay the amount, was in
he same way limited in its effect, as in its object,
0 the rela ions between banker and custoier
and did not prevent the latter from recovering
bs money from the person who received it(*)
But, on the other hand, s. 3, Truck Act, 1831
which provides that the entire amount of wages'
earned by any artificer shaU be actually paid to

b^ to a deduction from the wages of a debt due
from the workman to his employer (c). Sec. 16,

(a) S2 & 53 Viot. 0 49 sa 14 ir. n >- ™

Ben 69 • r» n , ' '''"»*''"'* V- 0^^«. 7 Times

Kep. 62 , Carr v. Dmgherts, 67 L. J. Q. B. 371

(i) Ogden v. Bentu, 43 L. J C P aw • i u

B„,i tr ^ °'°l'*°^-->- ^- P. 562; Pine Art Society v. Union

m "f P r ^''''^' '' ^- '■ «■ S- 70- C- A. See now s To
BdlB of Exchange Act, 1882, 45 & 46 Viot. c. 61 ; ZLy

(-) 1 & 2 WOl. IV. c. 37; m«/a„„ v. NorW. N«vi,jaiio„

f-'i?Miii

202

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Companies Clauses Consolidatiqn Aot, 1845, which
provides that no shareholder shall be entitled to
transfer any share after a call, until he has paid
up all calls due on all his shares, is only a protec-
tion to the company, giving it a 'ien or charse
upon the shares ; but it does not affect the validity
of a transfer as regards the creditors of the com-
pany,; if the company, has assented to it (a). So
it has been held that the provisions of a Kailway
Act which placed the management of the com-
pany's affairs in the hands of a certain number of
directors, were intended for the protection of the
shareholders merely, and that it was not open to a
stranger to object that they had not been comphed
with (A). Sec. 153, Companies Act, 1862 (repealed,
s. 205, Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908),
which declares " void " every transfer of shares in
a company which is being wound up, unless the
Court otherwise orders, was held not to prevent
a broker who had bought and paid for shares in a

ColUerim (1906), 76 L. J. K. B. 334 ; aummerhe Iron Co. v.
Thomtaa (1913), S. 0. (J.) 34, H. L. But Bee Keate» v. Lmi>
Merihyr Cdlieriet, 79 L. J. K. B. 722.

(a) 8 & 9 Viot. 0. 16 ; LitlMale, Exp. (1853), 43 L. J. Ch. 529 ;
discussed in Societe Oenerah de Paris v. Tramway Unions Co.
(1884), UQ. B.D., atp. 455.

(h) Thames Haven Co. v. Bose (1842), 4 M. & Gr. 552, which
case was oritieised in Alma Spinning Co., Be (1880), 50 L. J. Ch.
171.

BEBTRICTION TO THE SUBJEOT. 203

company so situated from recovering from his
prmcipal the money so paid (a).

thaUhA^' ^r^'^f'y Act, 1869, which enacted
mterest of the bankrupt, and that the property
isclaamed was to be deemed surrendered on thi
day of the adjudication, was held to be limited to
he rehef of the bankrupt and the trustee L
bankruptcy from liability; but not to affect the
nghts andhabilitiesof thelessor and original lessee
or underlessee(6). Sec. 38, Companies Act, 1^?

£ w?r ''' .'^""^^''^^^ (Consolidation A^t
^mLv f"^"^''' '^"^ '^^^y P'o^Pectus shall
specify all contracts entered into by the company or
by Its promoters, before the issue of the prospecius,

Tl-tr r^^ P™P^«*«^ which does no
specify them fraudulent on the part of the pro-
moters and directors who knowingly issued itf as
regards persons taking shares, is, literally, .^ide
enough to include every contract made by aTro
moter even regarding his own private afiais ; but
It was limited m construction to the object of the

(a) Chapman v. Shepherd, 36 L. J C P 111- jv
CoU, V. Brisu,.e ^868), L. B. 6 E,.. at p. ^S^" ' """^ '"

m 32 & 33 Vict. c. 71; now s. 54. Bankruptcy Act, 1914
(4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59); «,„,„, v. North, L. E. 7 e/ 242 Z
ra.™ 17Ch. D^746; mU. K, W.I. 2, Jcf 53 1 'j cT

204

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

Act, which was the protection of shareholders. It
was held, therefore, to include only snch contracts
as were calculated to influence persons in applying
for shares (a); and apparently does not create any
duty towards bondholders (A).

So, the Stamp Acts, which enacted that un-
stamped documents should not be pleaded orgiveu
m evidence, or be available in law or equity, were
construed as meaning only that such documents
should be unavailable for the purpose of recovering
any debt or property (c). The prohibition was,
however, held not to extend to cases where the
vaJidity of the document was impugned on the
ground of fraud or illegaLty (c). So, s. 93 of 64 &
55 Vict. c. 39 (reproducing sec. 7, 30 & 31 Vict. c.
23), which invalidates all contracts of sea assurance
unless expressed in a policy, and (s. 96 (2))
which prohibits giving in evidence any policy
not duly stamped, does not prevent the admission
of the slip in evidence, on a coUateral question of
fraud or misrepresentation (d),

(a)T«jcro«, v. Orant, 46 L. J. 0. T. 636; disonssed ard
explained m Madeary v. Tale, [1906] A. C 24, at p 29

(6) Cornell v. Bay (1873), 42 L. J. 0. P. I,<i6!

(c) B. V. HaMfcwortt, 1 T. B. 450 ; B. v. Oompem. 9 Q. B 824 ■
Poneford v. Walton. L. K. 3 C. P. 167. An unstamped pro-
missory note may be handed to a witness in order to chaUenge
his reoolleotion, Birchall v. BuUough (1896), 65 L. J. Q. B 252

W lonide, V. The Pacific I„,ura,ice Co.. 41 I,. J. Q. B 190

BESTBICTIOK TO THE SUBJECT.

205

c V^L'^T '^f' *^' °P^"'*^°'^ °f 7 Anne.
.12. J^haoh, with the view of seouring the
m^o ab:hty accorded to ambassadors by"! law
of nations, enacted that aU processes whereby al
ambassador or his servant might be arrested or
Jib goods seized, should be null and voM^) U,
heldnot to extend beyond what might be necesZ

who rented a house, part of which he let in
odgmgs, from having his goods taken by di less
for non-payment of a parochial rate. Upon the

extend the operation of the Act to such a ckse
soope and object (*). *

1?" ^"""^ '^•' «"•»*• - ■?-«« (1881), 7 A. 0.. at

(«) aq>«Wfc o/Boliria. I„ re. [1914] 1 Qh. 139.
((>) flweifo V. Toogood, 25 B B fin? h.» i r, , .
P«'<.r (188fi), 16 Q. B. D.. at J fei '^"*"~" '"

CHAPTEE IV.

SECTION I.— OONSTBDCTIOK TO PREVENT EVASION.

"I NEVER understood what is meant by au
' evasion ' of an Act of Parliament ; either you
are within the Act of Parliament or not. If you
are not within it you have a right to avoid it,
to keep out of the prohibition; if you are within
it, say so, and then the course is clear " (a). The
above is perhaps the dictum of a purist in language.
In ordinary life, in courts of law and sometimes
even in statutes the phrase " evasion " of an Act
of Parliament really connotes an attempt to avoid
compliance therewith.

"Everybody agrees, that 'evade' is capable of
bemg used in two senses : (1) which suggests
underhand dealing, (2) which means nothing more
than the intentional avoidance of something dis-
agreeable " (i).

As regards the first of these senses, it does not
reaUy mvolve a question of verbal construction

(a) Per Lord CraDworth L.O., Edward, v. Ball. 25 L J Ch
84. See post, p. 218.

(t) Simm V. RegUtrar of Probates, 69 L. J. C. P. 56.

CONSTRUCTION AOArNST EVASION. 207

be used foT .ho purpU\f ^^ J ^^^ J
lUusion, though it is rarely that tJ! '^^

such words will be called in quest 0^.%?'""^^ "'
will be, Is an evasion h«.n ^f,'°'' ' *!»« question

Oourt ;ill .arshort ToKfr b'. V"' ''^
second method of avoL! ! ,' ■^"* ^^^^ ^^^
is under consi toT ° '?"'*'^
not necessaril7fevour.h "'"'' "^^^"^ *^°»8h

-itofsuchivS;^ %rrir^*^^

ance is not in f«„f ." '^^ *'^** *he avoid-

te">platedb^'^et^;utrristaT'^r^°-
neither an evasion nor blJmew'X" S auT
being proved to have done nnfv '*'°'

««bt. In either case i^ t^/.tf r."^^
was an attempt at evasion • hLl ^* *^"®

Court towaxds' the oTwii b Mt J^"'' °' '""^
that as regards the other ^ '^^''■'"* ^""^

untruthful ev «:" wh ch mUr''"'*^ °' '"^
miechief^a) Tn . ^^* Perpetuate the

ofastatittit'^irir '^T"^' '^« °''J-^
all attempt; to do or 1:L7o— ' " *° ''''''
«^-uitousmann:rt\:::^.l-fl-S

W J%i«;.» 6W«j,« Case, n Bep. 71b.

208

INTKBPRBTATION OF 8TATUTB8.

lit

or enjoined (a). In frattdem legia facit, qui, fialvis
verbis legia, sentenliam ejiut, eircumvtnit (6); and a
statute is understood as extending to all suoli
oiroumventions, ind rendering them unavailing.
Quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibitur et rnnm; per
quod devenitur ad illud (c). " Whenever it can be
shown that the acts of the paities are adopted
for the purpose effecting a thing which is pro-
hibited, and the thing prohibited is in consequence
effected, the parties have done that which they
have purposely caused, though they may have
done it indirectly " (rf). When the thing done is
substantially that which was prohibited, it falls
within the Act, simply because, according to the
true construction of the statute, it is the thing
thereby prohibited («). Whenever Courts see such
attempts at concealment, " they brusl away the
cobweb varnish," and show the tran&./Jtion in its
true light (/). They see things as ordinary men
do (g), and so see through them. Whatever might
be the form or colour of the transaction, the law

(o) Bao. Ab. Statute (J.) ; Com. Dig. Parlmt. (B.) 28.
(6) 3 Dig. 1, 8, 29.

(c) 2 Inst. 48.

(d) Per Blaokburn J., Jeffriea v. Alexander (1860), 31 h. 3. Ch.
14; disonssed in Bobion, In re (1881), 18 Oh. Div., p. 163.

(e) Per Lord Oranworth, L.C., Philpolt v. St. George's HoajiUal,
6 H. L. Cas. 338.

(/) Per Wilmot C.J., Cottine v. Blantern, 2 Wils. 343.

(j) Per Lord Brougham, Warner v. Anulrmg, 3 Myl. & K. 45.

209

looks to the substance M p„wu.

Courts go behind thlA ""* P°'T>ose the

thereforen,„stL X It ?'^ ""'^' ^^
which was don;. T A? '"'*"' °^ *^»*

Pitting forward doTume " wV 1° '' ^^''^^ ^-^

e-iptior of the .^7) t ,/"/ '"'''
't «, in truth, rather th« n J f ""'^ ""e"'
than the statu e Sh tST'" *"^^'«'*'°"
«on: and if it is fo;;J " '^; .''"''J«°* "f construe-
»'atute, it is not suffied 1 "" "f '^ ^*^° *he
«- of the law brSanlrr ^°° ''^ °P"-

w^oh its rea, charter ".ir-^"^^^-'^-
Ihus, when either of th« a„* .

-- - force, it was said hat iS I'^^f '"'"'^ ^"^
''M an usurious loan of 1 "''°*™°* '«»"y

could notfind a sWft tol^ ^^ '^' ^* "^ '^«n

-«-nand,,ofgoods(Vt:?:;:rrof

(1891),60L.J.q:b.72V ■**■''*' *«'"'• -• ^o^

W For a Ust of them sea 1 , a 7<. „•
'S were aU „pea,ed ' "" '' * ^« V.ot. o. 90-by which .ot

W Per Lorf Mansfield. iY»»„ v m ^

(/) ^%.r V. Sd^^ .„„ : n^ '. -^"^ ''^ «»«».i«r.. 4 Camp. 1
Sy V. a«/,i<,«.Ta r^-;^?"" "■ ^''-''''-^- 2 Camp, a'ys ;
W Tote V. WeUinaa <J T tj eo,

J.s. "•

14

no

IMTIBPRIiTATION or 8TATCTB8.

a lease (o), or an agency (A), or a partnership (e),
when in reality asnrioas loans, were held to fall
within the Act. So, if a contract be a wager
in substance, no matter how the end is brought
about, it would be void, though the object were
concealed in the form given to the transaction (d).
And whether a document ought to be registered
under the Bills of Sale Acts is not concluded by
its terms or form, but depends on the evidence as
to the real nature of the transaction, as to the
real intention of the parties. Thus, if A be the
real owner of goods, and B the pretended owner,
and B by a document purports to let the goods

(o) Sedo V. Sanderim, Cro. Jao. 440; /m<oim v. Brmkc, 3
Cowp. 793.

(fc) Earrii v. Botton, 3 Camp. 348.

(«) Bnderbt) v. Gilpin, 6 Moo. 871.

(d) Oriumed v. Blane (1857), 11 0. B. 638. Comj,.
PUllip,, Exp., 30 L. J. Bkoy. 1 ; per Wilde B., Jeffrie, v.
Alexander, 8 H. L. Cas. 594 ; Thaeker v. Hardy, 4 Q. B. D. 685.
See also Bead v. Andenon, 62 L. J. Q. B. 219; 63 Id. 632;
Caminada v. Eulton, 60 L. J. M. 0. 116, with which comp. B. v!
Sloddart, 70 L. J. K. B. 189 ; see also Hgavu v. Simrt Ki»g.
77 L. J. K. B. 794 ; Be Deerhuril, 60 L. J. Q. C. 411. For
recent deoiaions, see Botlomles v. Director Public Proteculimu
(1916), 84 L. J. K. B. 354. Note espeoiftlly the remarks of
Darling J., at p. 366 : Minty v. Syhetter (1916), 84 L. J. K. B.
1983 ; JachKm v. Both (1918), 35 T. L. B. 59. As to evasion
of Truok Acts, GoM v. Uaynei, 69 L. J. M. C. 9. See Uinijimii
V. Sirajwron, 46 L. «\ 0. V. 193 ; SummerUe Iron Co. v. Tliomon
(^913), S. 0. (J.). 34.

211

owner, to B. if uTf^ '""""« ''^ A, the real
- «iven. then howevt 2 T " '"' ""* '' --

Aot ; and if it be not r«lf "P"^""" °f the

Act which proil S ?'• "," '"'' (">• ^'^
-- of play, without tej/r;^ "'« P-'o™'
Performanoe where th« ' '"''°' ^°"^d extend to a
»'age. but acred n a chat? '1',"°* "'""« "" *he
fip^res were reflected t ''"'"^ "' ^"^ their

to the spectator! t^„„'";7Vo - to appear
Libel Act, 1843 Zu\ ^ «tage(J). Sec

~ta.ir^etirr'f:s^-r ■
-« printed i^ s tZ::TT " '*^ '"'"«'

P«Per as would be liSv to ' P"'' "^ '''^

of ordinary readers ) An ^^ *''" ''"""''"'^

"^^*°---4t^2nr:°;x

(') « * 7 Viot. c. 68 s 2 .^ ^^ ^' ^ ^- ■'■ ^- B- i276.
^- J- M. 0. 149; see also 53 & 54 v"*. '' *"'^"" <^««5), 34
V. C»„,„„,, 37 J p 3^2 ^ 5* V.ot. c. 59. e. 5l, and 5^„.

W6&7Viot. c 96- L/-
'• f".e,.a,, [19I3J w Tm '• ' "' "•'' A°'. »« ^-

212

INTEBPBBTATION OF 8TATDTB8.

the mortgagee of them from liability to the cove-
nants, after the trustee in bankruptcy had dis-
claimed, was treated as an attempt to evade the
repealed Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and was a sham
and therefore void (a). The repealed Act of 1854
which required the registration of bills of sale of
personal chattels was held to extend to agreements
for a bill of sale, constituting an equitable assign-
ment (6). And where the grantor of a bill of sale o .
furniture remained in possession as the servant of
the grantee, with lea^e to use the furniture as part
of his salary, it was held that the grantee was not
in possession by his servant, but that the grantor
was in possession within the meaning, for the case
was within the mischief, of the Act (c). The Acts
which protected the monopoly of the Bank of
England by prohibiting bodies of more than six

(o) 46 & 47 Viot. e. 52, s. 55 (6); see 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59,
s. 54 (6); Smitk, Se, 59 L. J. Q. B. 554.

(6) 17 & 18 Vict. 0. 36, and 45 & 46 Viot. o. 43 ; Mackay, Exp.,
42 L. J. Bank. 68; Edumrda v. Mdaardt, 45 L. J. Cli. 391 ;
Braniom v. Griffii, (1877), 46 L. J. 0. P. 408; OdeU. Exp..
48 L. J. Bank. 1 ; see, however, Alleoj/p v. Day, 31 L, J. Ex.
105 ; .lyerley v. Premst, h. E. 5 0. P. 144 ; Manden v. Meadon,,,
50 L. J. Q. B. 536 ; Woodgaie v. Godfrey, 5 Ex. D. 24 ; Walioii,
Be, 59 L. J. Q. B. 394 ; MadeUY. Thomai, sup. p. 209; Cochrane
V. Xatlhem, 10 Ch. D. 80 n.

(c) Pickard v. Marriage, 45 L. J. Ex. 594. See also aihhani v.
Bickmn, 55 L. J. Q. B. 119 ; Exp. Leait, h. B. 6 Ch. 626. See
also SlaUard v. Mark), 3 Q. B. D. 412.

OOK8TRC0TION AGAINST EVAfllOV. 213

from tfe ::cr.f:"^^*^«^^*^----^^^

aiegal for Toh T I / °°°'*"'^ *° °"*o it

effect orsaoh^tir ''^ '" ""'"'^^ = ^°' *^o
petition XtleTtT^""^^ '^'^' °^ oom-

of bills arfnotrr /nd t'^^"' '" *'^ '""^
payment (S). All such transactions were held fn

W Bani <./JJ„<,/a»<f v. Anier,„„, (1837), 7 L J Ch 2R^
W Boothy.Bank 0/ England. 7 CI & F 509 ip Jf
I Mont. & M'Arth. 86. "^ow, tacp. Sandlenn,

S ^ ^'Z '''^""•^ ^- ■»""''*- (1850), 20 L. .7 Ex 26
(a) floe V Carter, 4 B B Sfifi H«. u • '• M. Jb.

('858), 6 H. L. Oa^. 789 ' °'"'""' ''™-^' '■ ^"^'H

m

214

INTEBPBETATION OP STATUTES.

able if divested of the intent to break the
covenant (a). A similar warrant of attorney, given
by an insolvent to enable a favoured creditor to
take his goods in execution, would, in the same
way, be within the provisions against fraudulent
transfers of property (i).

The Charitable Uses Act, 1736, 9 Geo. II.
c. 36(c), which prohibited the disposition to a
charity of land, or money to be laid out in the
purchase of land, otherwise than by deed executed
twelve months before the donor's death, to be
enrolled within six months from its execution,
and to take effect immediately, and without power
of revocation or any reservation for the benefit of
the donor, has frequently been the subject of such
experiments. Thus, a bequest of money to the
committee of a school, on condition that tbey
would provide land for a charitable purpose, would
fall within the Act ; for such a transaction differs
but in name from a purchase of the land and a

(o) Bills V. SmUh, 34 h. J. Q. B. 68 ; Vautm, In re, [1900]
2 Q. B. 325.

(6) Sharpe v. Thomas, 6 Bing. 416 ; Croft v. iMmleg, 6 H. L.
Cas. 672. See 32 & 33 Viot. o. 71, s. 92; (repealed, s. 48,
46 & 47 Viot. c. 52); repealed 4 & 5 Geo. V. o. 59, s. 41;
Griffith, Exp., 52 L. J. Oh. 717 ; Be Ooldsmid, 56 L. J. Q. B. 195.
For an exception to this rale, see New's Trustee v. Hunting, [1897j
1 Q. B. 607 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 554, 0. A.

(c) Eepealed save a. 5 by 51 & 52 Viot. o. 42, s. 13.

C0N8TBU0TI0N AGAINST EVASION. 215

devise of it (a). The testator did not, indeed,
directly devise the land; but he gave money in
consideration of land being 'given to a charity,
which was substantiaUy the same thing. So,
money bequeathed to be laid out in building
houses, where there was no land already in mort-
main (6) to build them on, would have been
construed as an indirect instruction to purchase
land for the purpose (c). So a legacy to trustees
of a chapel to be applied by them towards the
discharge of a mortgage on the said chapel is
void(d). Where the owner of land, with the
object of evading the statutes, executed a deed,
which he kept concealed tiU his death, whereby
he covenanted that he or his executors would pay
to trustees for certain charitable purposes, a large
sum of money, which would necessarily have to
(«) A..G. V. Davie., 9 Ves. 63S. See also judgment of Lord
Omnworth, h.C., PhilpoU V. St. Oeorge; Ho^tal (1857) 6 H L
Cas. 349; 27 L. J. Oh. 70. also sup. p. 208. and inf. p. a2l'
See, however. Mortmain and Charitable Uses Act 1891
Provision of s. 5 no longer appUes to Und assured by vrill
for the purpose of an elementary sohool-house ; 2 Bdw Vn
0. 43. s. 23 (5). ■

(6) Comp. Brodie v. Chando,, 1 Bro. C. 0. 444 n.- and
Pntchard v. Arhmin, 27 B. B. 106.

(c) .1.-0. V. Tyndall, Ambl. 614 ; Mather v. Scott (1837) 44
R. B. 229 ; 6 L. J. Oh. 380 ; Oiblett v. Hoh,on. 41 B. B. 144, but
« crneno for a reason therein specified, see Biggar v. Eaet-
««'J(1886),19L.B.Ir.,atp.65.
{d) Corhyn v. French (1799). 4 Vesey, 418.

pBc:

216

INTEKPBKT\TIOV OF STATtJTEB.

be raised ont of his land, this was held to fall
within the prohibition of the statute. The
creation of a fictitious debt on which execution
might issue, and the land be taken, was but an
indirect mode of making a gift of the land (a).

So, a settlement, under the Poor Law, by rent-
ing a tenement, was not obtained where the rent-
ing was colourable or fraudulent (6). It has been
held that where a woman pregnant with an ille
gitimate child was fraudulently removed by the
officers of the parish in which she was settled (c)
to another parish, the child's place of settlement
was not the parish where it was bom, but that
in which it would, but for the fraudulent removal,
have been bom (d). Indeed, it has been held that
where an unmarried woman was removed to a
parish by order of justices, and gave birth to a
child there, and the order was quashed on] appeal,
the child was to be regarded as born in the parish
where he ought to have been, and not where he

(o) Jeffriea v. Alexander, 8 H. L. Oas. 594; aod per Cur.,
Attree v. Ham, 47 L. J. Oh. 863. Comp. Bobum, Re 61
L. J. Oh. 337.

(i) B. V. Wwidland, 1 T. B. 261 ; B. v. Tittingham, 1 B. & Ad.
180; B. V. St. SepuJcire, Id. 924.

(e) See B. v. AtOei/, 4 Dong. 389.

((f) Marten v. Child, 3 Salk. 66 ; Tewketbttry v. Tuymng, 2
Bott. 3. Compare B. v. Mattertey, 4 B. & Ad. 211; B. v.
BaU/ax, 2 B. & Ad. 211 ; and B. v. Birmingham, 32 R. R.

COKSTBUCTION AOAINBT EVASION. 217

mg to obtain a bastardy order where she resided

held that the justices of the borough had no iuris-
to to make it, under the Act which gi"s such

resides (ft), it would have been different if she
had not removed for the sole object of getting into
another junsdiotion^^). *

On this general principle, the Courts have
repeatedly refused to review by Mandamus, or
otherwise, the proceedings of an inferior Court in
a matter within its jurisdiction, when a writ of
Certiorari is not granted (d). Where the payment
of rates constitutes a personal qualification, the
Act would not be compUed with if they were paid
by another person on behalf of him who clLs
the qualification (e).

H. 832 ; B. y. Cheat Salkdd, 6 M. i 8 408

L.? Ex. lof "*"• '' ''• '■ ""■ "• ''' ■' *"^ - ^'"*». 27

«.';'i.^ttiir' ^- *^''-^««-^^ ^- * ^. S«3;
W A V. Brias^nortA (1839), SO E. E. 334 ; 8 L. J. M 0 86 •
P^rant v. Wither,, 43 L. J 0 P US R, ^ „

i>n^««rfer, 3 T. E. 550; Bugh^ v. C*«M„„ ^843), 13

218

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

I

It is, however, essential not to confound what is
actually or virtually prohibited or enjoined by the
language, with what is really beyond the enacting
part, though it may be within the policy, of the
Act; for it is only to the former case that the
principle under consideration applies, and not to
cases where, however manifest the object of the
Act may be, the language is not co-extensive with
it. An Act of Parliament is always subject to
evasion in this sense; for there is no obligation
not to dv what the Legislature has not really
prohibited, and it is not evading an Act to keep
outside of it (a). This is strikingly illustrated by
a case from Australia decided by the Privy
Council and in which the very word "evade"
came in question (ft). By s. 27 (South Austral'" t),
Succession Duties Act, 1893 (which corresponds
with s. 8 (English) Succession Duty Act, 1863,
16 & 17 Vict. c. 51), property comprised in any

L. J. 0. P. 44 ; S. v. S. Kilangtm, 13 L. J. M.: C. S. See
Chmnery v. Evam (1864), 11 H. L. Cas. 118 ; Batloch v. Athbem
(1882) 19 Ch. D. 539.

(o) See per Lord Cranworth, Edwardt v. Ball (1863), sup.
p. 306, and per Lord Selbome, Maebelh v. Aahley (1874), L. R.
2 So. App. 359.

(6) Simmg v. Regwirar of Prdbaiea (1900), 69 L. J. P. C. 51.
See also Bullivant v. A.-O. for Victoria (1901), 70 L. J. K. B.
645; Payne v. Begem, 71 h. J. P. 0. 128; Commr. for Stamp
Dtttiea v. Bymet, [1911] A. C. 386; 80 L. J. P. C. 114. See
also A.-O. V. Seaamhe, 80 u. J. K. B. 913.

CONSTBUOTION AGAINST EVASION. 219

non-testamentary disposition, or representing any
debt incurred, •• with intent to evade the payment "
of Succession Duty, was rendered liable to double
du^. In the Colonial Court from whom the appeal
tothePnvy Council came. Way C.J., said that,
m that provision, "evade, means some device or
stratagem, some arrangement, trust, or other device
(whether concealed or apparent) by which what is
reaUy part of tho estate of the deceased is made to
appear to belong to somebody else in order to
escape payment of Duty." That ruling was upheld
by the Pnvy Council, and, accordingly, it was held
that a covenant by the deceased in that case to
pay ^200,000 to his children which conferred on
them a complete ownership of the debt, and which
(not havmg been paid during his life) diminished
by that amount his net assets liable to Duty (even
though the covenant was a -disposition of pro-
perty" withm the meaning of tho Act), was not
entered into « with intent to evade " the Duty
there being no evidence to show that the cove-
nant was not a genuine transaction, or anything
to impeach its bonA fides.

So, a lately deceased Duke of Eichmond, being
minded that his successors should escape Estate
iJuty, conceived the idea to and did disentail and
acquire the fee simple of certain estates in Scotland,
and p •ocur«d a valuation of the present duke's
inteiest in the estates which came to MIS 000

/^O INTBRPBKTATION OP BTATUTBB.

and another of the present duke's son's interest
which came to £287,000. These sums with interest
thereon were charged on the estates and were
assigned by the present duke and his son to trustees
upon trust to pay the. income thereof to the present
duke for life and after his death to his son. No
interest, however, was paid on them, and the late
duke from time to time gave bonds for such
interest amounting to ^688,314. When the duke
died in 1£03, the Inland Revenue claimed Estate
Duty in respect of these estates ; but it was held
that none was payable, because the said sums and
interest amounted in the aggregate to more than
the valuj of the said estates that passed on the
death of the late duke (a)

A hiring for a few days less than a year, though
avowedly for the purpose of preventing the servajit
from acquiring a settlement, was not regaidod
as any evasion of the Act, which gave a settle-
ment on a yoar's service (b). Where a testator
after devising a piece of land in a certain hamlet
in fee simple, directed that if any person should,
within twelve months after the testator's decease!

(o) A.-a. V. Duke of Bichmond (1909), 78 L. J. K. B. 1, in
H. L. Id. 998 ; Lord Shaw (one of the two dissenting Lords)
said : " I do not think that the scheme was in this case accom-
plished without a contravft- 'on of the letter, as well as a very
plain violation of the spirit, of the statute."

(i) B. v. Little Coggeehall, 6 M. & S. 264 ; B. v. Mmeley, 1
T. B. 694.

00N8TBUOTI0N AGAINST EVASION. 221

l-/l!,°'''" °^ "P*"'®' P"''^'"'^ and give a
of the wiU should pay a sum of money to the

lir^.'^ T*'*"*«^' ''"* "^ '^''* no P"t should be
«d out in the purchase of land; it was held that
the bequest was valid, and did not fall within the
Chantable Uses Act, 1-36 (a). And again, where
a testator devised land to two personrabsdutely
^dsip.ed,m unattested paper expressing a desire
r!?ww ? Y ''''' '^"oquainted until after hi
death, that it should be applied to charitable pur-
poses, It was held that the devise was valid, and
did not faU within that Act; for there y,L no
bmdmg trust for charitable purposes (ft)

Although a beershop-keeper who is licensed to
seU beer only to be drunk off the premises, evades
the Act If he sells beer to be drunk on a bench
which he provides for his customers close to his
shop, the mtention making it, virtually, a sale for
consumption on the premises (c); a'mere sd

road outside, has been held not to be an evasion,

W PhilpoU V. St. George-. Hospital. 6 H L Oi.» 1^8

ff"«. 25 L. J. Ch. 82. '■''° ^"^"^ "■

{i) Wdllgrme v. Te}At a.") r. i nu o^, ..
(1867). L. E. 3 Eq. 635 '" ' ^'^' '■ ^'""'^

(c) Crost V. Watts, 32 L J W r 79 a > -
Beigk. (1876), 45 L. .T. M C sa' ' "" *"^™ "

iJ»*

222

IMTIBPRBTATION OF HTATDTIS.

thongh the buyer drank the beer immediately on
receiving it (a). A licensee is not anthorised to
sell liqnor during prohibited hours for consumption
off the premises, by s. 10, Licensing Act, 1874
(repealed, s. 61 (3), Licensing (Consolidation) Act,
1910), which allows the sale of liquor at any time
to bmd fide travellers, by a person licensed to sell
liquor on the premises (6). The occupier of a field
adjoining a turnpike does not evade, though he
avoids, payment of toll, by making a semicircular
road between two g:i.ps in his hedge, one on each
side of the toll bar, and driving by it instead of
along that part of the highway which forms its
chord (c). Nor does a shipowner evade harbonr
dues charged on goods landed in it, by landing
his goods a few yards outside the boundary of
the harbour (d).

An enactment which imposed a duty on legacies,
did not extend to a gift to take effect on the donor's
death, made by a deed which contained a power of
revocation ; though such a gift had all the essential

(o) Deid V. Sehofield (1867), 37 L. J. M. 0. 15 ; a doubtful
case decided on particular facts, aod probably nulliliod by
s. 66 (1), Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910.

(6) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 49; Mmntijield v. Ward, 66 L. J. Q. B.
346.

(c) Harding V. Eeadingkm, 43 L. J. M. 0. 59 ; Veitch v. Exekr,
27 L. J. M. 0. 116.

(d) WUmn V. Boterltm, 24 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; flartey v. Lyme
Begi,, 38 L. J. Ex. 141.

0OF,mDOTIO!l AOAIN8T EVASION. 223

exeoutiion when exoeedine iSO an.! .-*;,« • ,
notice ome debtor. ^J.Z^Z\\:;^:^
0 the trustee m bankruptcy, did not p^vent"

lor lesB than that amount, though ha ai^ .„

avcwedlyto escape fromtheo^eratiofof the Act(*)
An agreement that the rent of dem,««r • ''

should be reduced when aS as soonall^"""''''
ta. was aboh^ed, was heM ITm '^tZZl
prohibition contained in s 7q nf fj.o t ""^^'^^
Act. 1842. of aU centimes Id^ng th^Tel^r

l^^'-Uo'd the amount paid in respect of tithe

(«) Tor,p^„y. Broume (183S), 3 M. i K. 32- S L J ri, fi^
See. We. 44 * 45 Vict. o. 12. e. 38. and ,2 1 a3 V^t,.

0Kr£4l\^eo"v.VSs.^4t""^^
W Colbion V. Troiime (1862), 31 L T n d oe, ^

277. 4ar ° ■^'""* "■ ^"^'' *8 L. J. Q. B.

224

INTBBPBITATION OF ITATirnni.

wnt-oharge has been held to be prohibited by the
Tithe Act, 1891 (a). A railway company, prevented
from raising money by loan, may yet procure
money by a sale of a portion of its rolling stock
for the Bom which it requires, retaining the stock
by hiring it for a term, on payment of an annual
sum which repays the purchase-money with
interest (6).

A warrant of attorney which authorised the issue
of a writ of sequestration on a rectory as often ar.
an annuity granted by the incumbent was in arrear,
was held invaUu; as this would amount to a
charging of a benefice to pay the annuity, contrary
to 13 Eliz. c. 20 (repealed 67 Geo. HI. c. 90,
8. l)(c). But where the warrant of attorney par-
ported to be merely to secure the payment of an
annuity mentioned la a bond which had been
given for its payment, the Court refused to set
aside the judgment entered up on the warraut,
as it was not a charging of the benefice ; althongh
it appeared, by affidavit, that the object of .he
parties waa, that the judgment should enable the
annuitant to obtain a sequestration of the grantor's

(o) S4 & 66 Viot. 0. 8, s. 1 (1); ludlou, v. Piie, [1904] 1
K. B. 631 ; 2^./ V. Draper' t Co. (1913), 82 L. J. K. B. 174.

(6) YorlaUn Bailnay Wagon Co. v. Xaclure, 21 Ch. D. 309;
comp. Waulhier v. Wilton (1911), 27 T. L. B. 582.

(c) Flight V. Salter, 86 H. B. 413; Saltmar,he v. Heicelt, 40
B. B. 436.

OOlWTBUCnoiT AOAINW .TAMON. 226

ine Aot which required that all bill. «*? i ,
personal ohatteU .hn„M i. . ' "' *"'* <»'

It hag been found necessary to snffflr «„
or breach of an Art S ■ *° ^^^^on

-- wouid"ot^.rzr-^tT

S H. L. Cas. 594. sap. pp. aj ^09 ""'* •'"•^"■" -• ^'--^r.

W *««fc V. Bkit, 42 L. J. C P 20 r
^; B.„l. n; E^. s,e,.„.. L B 20 ErTslV"*"' "
"W/on, 43 L .1 o n IT I ' ^9- '°o i Sam. .». v

['m]2K B ,?4 0.A "^"'"^^'■"*''^''''^*-'-I"

I.S.

15

22«

IirrBBPRETATION OF STATUTKB.

33 & 34 Viet. o. 97 (repealed and re-enacted
54 & 55 Vict. 0. 39, s. 14), enacted that no
document which is not properly stamped should
be receivable in evidence, and (s. 54, now s. 88,
Stamp Act, 1891) that a person who received a
bill of exchange or cheque not duly stamped could
not recover upon it, or make it available for any
purpose whatever; it has been held that if tlie
cheque sued upon has a stamp sufScient on its
face, the fact that it was post-dated to the know-
ledge of the holder, and so was not suflSciently
stamped, did not affect its admissibility in evidence;
on the ground that a different decision would have
introduced the greatest di£Soulty in the adminis-
tration of justice, involving an interruption of the
trial by collateral inquiries as to facts accompanjang
the giving of the instrument (o).

SECTION II. — CONSTBUCTION TO PBEVENT ABUSE OF
POWEBS.

On the same general principle, enactments which
confer powers are so construed as to meet all
attempts to abuse them, either by exercising them
in cases not intended by the statute, or by refusing

(a) Oaliy v. Fry, 2 Ex. D. 265. See per Blackburn J., Auilin
V. Bmyard, 6 B. & 8. 687 ; Soyal Banh of Scotland v. Tolteiilum,
[1894] 2 Q. B. 715. But compare Clarke v. Boche (1377), 3
Q. B. D. 170.

TO PBEVENT ABUSE OF POWEBa 227

to exercise them when fi,„

exercise has arisen (I) TWrZaTt f *'"'

vnthxn Us letter, it would nevertheless beTeTd ^ot

oneX TnS" I' '""''' '' ^"^ "^^ertis C*

instance the power given by Bankruptcy Acts Z

Meir aebtor(6); which were made bv sta+nfo
.ndu.g on the non-assenting minori y.^u Id n

^ith fraud or even If, fromr..tives of benevolence
the majontyhad agreed to a compositionTspro
por loned to the assets (.). So, the creditor who

s. 126 of the repealed Bankruptcy Act, 1869 was
bound to vote ba,.4 Jid. for the ben fit of Z
creditors; and if it appeared that he gave his Mte
for the benefit of the debtor, and not fo^hat

ia) See ^Turner L.J B^,„.„, ,. ,, «,„,^,,

16Ch.D 449 "" " * ■''""''' ''^•"•y (ISSO).

{h) See 4 & 5 Geo. V. o. 59 s 16

Ml, Exv 51 Ti T Ch Qi 1 « . -"'i'M f on. jj. yij ;

228

INTEKPBETATIOlf OP 8TATDTE8.

n)

of the creditors, it would have been rejected (a).
Malpractice by the debtor in obtaining a single
vote sufficed to vitiate a creditor's resolution for
liquidation by arrangement, under the Bankruptcy
Act of 18G9 (h).

Where, as in a inultitude of Acts, something is
left to be done according to the discretion of the
authority on whom the power of doing it is con-
ferred, the discretion must be exercised honestly
and in the spirit of the statute, otherwise the act
done would not fall within the statute. " Accord-
ing to his discretion " means, it has been said,
according to the rules of reason and justice, not
private opinion (c) ; according to law and not
humour ; it is to be, not arbitrary, vague aud
fanciful, but legal and regular (d) ; to be exercised
not capriciously but on judicial grounds and for
substantial reasons {e). And it must be exercised
within the limits to which an honest man com-
petent to the discharge of his office ought to

(a) Cobb, Exp. (1873), 42 L. J. Bank. 63 ; and see McHenrs,
Exp. (1883), 2+ Ch. Div. 35, C. A.

{?,) Baum, Re (1878), 7 Ch. D. 719, C. A.

(c) Boolce't Case, 5 Eep. 100a ; Keighley'a Case, 10 Rep. 140a ;
Lea V. Bai^e B. Co., L. E. 6 C. P. 580, 581, per Willes J.

{,!) Per Lord Mansfield, R. v. Wilkee (1769), 4 Burr. 2527; and
per Lord Halsbury L.C., Shitrp v. WakefieU, [1891] A. C. 179.

(e) Per Jessel M.K., Taylur, Be, 4 Ch. D. 160 ; aud jier Lord
Blackburn, Doherty v. Allman, 3 App. Gas. 728.

TO PKEVENT ABUSE OK POWERS. 229

foTtt' v'^T''^''^' that is, Within the Unfits and
Z^VT '°*'"''^ ^^ *^^ Legislature. These
dicta may be summed up in the statement of Lord

out Lt '''! '''^^^^*^- --' l-e -e-sed with
out takmg mto account any reason which is not

pubic iTl '^'°^'' ^^° ^''^^ *° --c-e a

account ti'^'T-T^ *'^"- '^•^^-'-'^ "^^« into
account matters which the Courts consider not to

be proper for the guidance of their discretion tLn

ritr;;.""^^*^-^---™-d'ti^:

Thus, it was long ago settled that the power
g.ven by the 43 Eli. to the overseers of paS
to raise a poor rate by taxation of the parishione
n such competent sums as they thoughtt d d
no authorise an arbitrary rate on each parishioner
but required that the rates should be equa^^rd'
proport at to the means of the contribltt (!)
So, the Highway Act, 183.5, 5 & 6 Will. IV c 60

against the road surveyor's accounts, the justices
at special highway sessions should hear it, and

W ^^rLordKenyon, Wihon v. BaMl. i T K 757. p
A^ully. Salk. 526; S. v. Wa^ell. 1 Doug. Us ' ''^ '■

m B. v. SI. Pancrm (1890), 24 Q. B. D. at p 375 q.„
however, B. v. S.ard of-Education (1910) 79 L J K H .0^

if. f^ •'"""' "■ ^"'■"'H Dock, (1864), 35 L J M G 1 ^

230

INTEBPBKTATION OF STATUTES.

"make suoli order thereou aa to them should
seem meet," would not authorise them to allov^
illegal expenses, such as a charge for the use of
the Burveyoi's horses, contrary to s. 46, which are
expressly forbidden to be incurred at all (a). So,
overseers, who were required by s. 2 of 3 & 4
Vict. c. 61 (6), to certify whether applicants for
beer licenses were real residents and ratepayers of
the parish, were not entitled to refuse the certifi-
cate on the ground that in their opinion there
were already too many public-houses, or that the
beer-shop was not required. They had no right
to shut their eyes to. the facts, and to refuse to
certify, when they were satisfied that the appli-
cant possessed the qualifications required by the
Act (c). Under a repealed enactment which pro-
vided that no license should be refused by justices
except on one or more of four specified grounds,
it was held that justices, in refusing, were bound
to state on which of the grounds they based their
refusal, as otherwise they might, in abuse of
their powers, refuse on other grounds than those
to which they were limited {d). The power to

(n) Barton v. Pl<j<jcill, U L. J. M. 0. 5.

(/)) Bepealed in part 32 & 33 Viot. o. 27, a. 21.

(t) R. V. Wilhyham, 2 Com. Law Eep. 1657. See, however,
B. V. Kensingtou (1847), 17 L. J. Q. E. 332, in which it was held
that tlie giving of a certificate was not compulsory.

(d) 32 & 33 Viot. o. 27, a. ^ ; M. v. Si/kcg, 1 Q. B. D. 32 ; &j..

TO PBBVBNT ABU8B OF POWEHS. 231

take certain lands for the purpose of their under-
akmg, given to railway and other companies, or
0 municipaJities for their public works, oonsti-
tutes them sole judges as to whether they wUl
take the limds, but they must act bond /de for
the puiposes authorised by the Act, and not for a
coUateraJ purpose (a) ; and the lands must only be
used for the purposes for which they were taken (6),
'•'iless authoritative sanction be given to their
bemg otherwise used(c); and, *mA/., the powers
aia not assignable (rf).

10 Edw. vn. and 1 Geo. V. o. 24, s. 112, Sohed 7
(«) Slo.il„„ fly. Co. V. Bro«n (1860), 9 H. L. Cas. 246-

Wo/ w„U, 63 L. J. M. C, 88; Tr^„j v. i>„«,, 70

82L. T. 362 ""*"" ''*'"'' *• ^""•^' t^-^y-Ciaoo),

(i) £o»rf<m Comty CoumU v. ^.-fi., 71 L. J. Ch. 268 .1 -G v
Mersey, B., 76 L. J. Ch. 568; Eccle. Corp. v. S™a U„,a,Hirc
Tran,«ays Co. (1910), 79 L. J. Ch. 759; ^.-0. v T.
GUmce,ter,hire Water Co., 78 L. J. Ch 746- ^ O v A • ,
(-'«?., 80 L. J. Ch. 21. ' • "^^ -'""""'■

W ^.-0. V. ffamre« (1900), 69 L. J. Ch. 626; A-G v
footypridd (1905), 75 L. J. Ch. 678. " . ^- <^. v.

W^dmburgK Street Tram«ay, Co. v. miuburgh (1894), 63
L. J. Q. B. 769; Eecle, Corp. v. So,Uh Lancaeiire TraLaJ Co .
ap.,m whjohcase Cozens-Hardy M.B. said : " A parliamentary
~=ch,se of th.s kind is not a bit of property which the owner
an dispose of just as he might a stick or a table or an acre of

1 r

ill

232

INTEBPBETATION OF BTATDTES.

Although wheio the discretion has been settled
by practice, it seems right that this should not be
departed from without strong reason (a); yet in
oases where a statute confers a discretionary power
an exercise of it in the fetters of self-imposed rales
of practice, purporting to bind in all cases, would
not be within the Act (A). Thus, where an Act
gave the Court of Quarter Sessions power, if it
thought fit, to give costs in every poor law appeal
It would be bound to exercise a fair and honest
discretion in each case, and would not be entitled
to govern itself by a general resolution, or rule of
practice, to give nominal costs in all oases (c) • for
this would be in effect to repeal the provision of
the Act. So, a licensing Act, now repealed (,/),
which empowered justices to grant licenses to
innkeepers and others, to sell liquors, as in the
exercise of their discretion they deemed proper
would not justify a general resolution to refuse'
licenses in a certain locaUty (e). or to persons who
did not consent to take out an excise license for
the sale of spirits, in addition to the license for

(a) 2 Inst. 298. See B. v. Chapman (1838), 8 C. & P 558
See also Codd v. Cabe (1876), 1 Ei. D. 352, C. A.
(6) See A.-G. v. Emerton (1889), 24 Q. B. D 56

„il^' ^' ^'™""* ^^^")' ^ <3- ^- 163; Ji- V. Glamorgamhir.
(1850), 19 L. J. M. C. 172.

id) See 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V. c. 24, s. 112, ScheJ. 7.
(«) B. V. Wahatt (1854), 3 Com. L. K. 100.

TO PBtvoiT Aiem o» TO,™. 233

qumng other hours; it was held that theyTad no
nght to alter the time in every case by virt„e of

And though their resolution was limitfl^ t„ 1
portion of the locality, yet as th" po" ' 1
pnsed every licensed house of the whole TstricT
he hmitation was regarded as a mere at mpt

aecide, in the honest and bondjide exercise of their
judgment, what particular locdlties req^ed w"

selves as to those special circumstances of the

(a) i?. V. Sylvater (18621, 2 B & fi Sa-! • qi r t ,^ „

W A V. £„„„„„, [1898] 1 Q. B. 663. ^

W ^ ^; 1^™' Si.Ung a C, [1896] 2 Q. B. 386.
(1) Macbetl, V. A^^y (1874), L. B. 2 Sc. App. 352.

234

INTEBPBBTATION OF 8TATl)TK«.

particular locality, which by taking them out of
the general rule laid down by Parliament, required
that an exception should be made (a). The statute
laid down a general rule, and permittfd an excep-
tion ; but here the exception had swallowed up
the nUe ; and that which might fairly have beeu
an exercise of discretion, became no exercise of
the kind of discretion meant by the Act (6).

(o) See judgment of Lord Selbome L.C., 2 So. App. 359.
(i) fer Lord Cairns L.C., Id. 387,

m

CHAPTER V.

SECTION I.-PBESUMPTIONS AGAINST OUSTING ESTAB-
LISHED, AND CBEATINO NEW, JURISDICTIONS.

It is, perhaps, on the general presumption
agams an intention to disturb the established state
of the law, or to interfere with the vested rights of
the subject (a), that so strong a leaning now exists
against construing a statute so as to oust or restrict
he jurisdiction of the Superior Courts; although
this feehng may owe its origin to the pecuniaiy
interests of the Judges in former times, when their
emoluments depended mainly on fees (6). It is
supposed that the Legislature would not make
so miportant an innovation, without a very explicit
expression of its intention. It would not be in-
erred, for inst-noe, from the grant of a jurisdiction
0 anew tribunal over certain oases, that t-ie Legis-
laturemtended to deprive the Superior Court of

(a) See Jacobs v. Brett, L. R. 20 Eq 1

236

INTEBPRKTATION OV BTATUTC8.

the jurisdiotion which it already posBessed over
the same caBes. Thus, an Act which provided
that if any question arose upon taking a distress,
it should be determined by a commiBsiouer uf
taxes, would not thereby take away the jurisdic-
tion of the Superior Court to try an action for
an illegal distress (a). Nor would that Court be
ousted of its preventive jurisdiction to stop by
injunction the misapplication of poor rates, by
reason of the statutory power given to the pour
law commissioners to determine the propriety of
all such expenditure (b). Nor did it follow iu either
case, that because authoritj' was given to the
commissioners, it was taken away from the Court.
Acts which gives justices and other inferior
tribunals jurisdiction in certain cases are not only
generally understood, when silent on the subject,
not to affect the power of control and supervision
which the Superior Court exercises over the pro-
ceedings of such tribunals ; but are even strictly
construed when (iheir language is doubtful. Thus
enactments to the effect that " no Court shall
intermeddle " in the cases (c), or that the case

(0) 43 Geo. III. 0. 99 (repealed 43 & 44 Viot. o. 19, s. 4);
SKaftalmrn v. Biutell (1823), 28 R. B. 534. See also SnfUaU
Oiinal Co. V. King, 14 Q. B. 122.

(1) A.-G. V. SoiUhamfton, 17 Sim. 6. Soo Birley V. Chorllon,i
Beav. 490 Smith v. Whilmare, 1 Hem. & M. 576.

((■) B. V. Mordey, 2 Burr. 1041.

AGAINST OCBTINO JUBWDIOTIoy. 237

(ball be "heard and finally determined " below („)
would not be construed as prohibiting such inter-
ference; and enactments which expressly provide
that such proceedings shall not be removed by
Certiorari to the Superior Court have no applica-
tion when the lower tribunal has overstepped the
limits of Its jurisdiction in making the order (b)
or is not duly constituted (c), or where the party
who obtained the order, obtained it by fraud hi)
for the prohibition obviously applied only to cases
which had been entrusted to the lower jurisdiction
The saying has been attributed to Lord Mans-
field that nothing but express words can take away
the jurisdiction of the Superior Courts (.); but it
seems also it may certainly be taken away by

(a) B. y. Plowriuhl. 3 Mod. 96; 2 Hawk. P. 0. o 27 b 23
See J^ob.v. BreU, L. B. 20 Eq. 1 ; 0Aa».6.r. v. Gr«,, Id'. 552 •

Chadmii v. Ball, 54 L. J. Q. B. 396.

5 E^i- B. 49; B. v. S. Wale. B. Co. (1849), 13 Q. B. 988'

Bradlawjh, Exp., 3 Q. B. D. 509.

(.) B. V. Chellenham (1841), 56 E. B. 321; 1 Q. B 467 • and
m Colonial Bank of Australia v. Wilia« (1874), 5 L B P 0
at pp. 443, 444. ^'

W B. yCajubridge. 4 A. & E. 121,^ Lord Denman ; B. v

STp. c. «;.■ '''' "'"'""''''' ''""* "^ ^""™'''' ^- '*'•«'"";

(e) B. V. Abbot (1780), Doug. 663.

'it

238

nrrRBPBRATION OP 8TATUTU.

implication (a). Thai, a provision that if any dis-
pute arises between a society and any of its members
it shall be lavfal to refer it to arbitration, oasts
the jnrisdiotion of the Courts over such dispnteB(/>).
It is obvious that the provision, from its nature,
would be superfluous and useless, if it did not
receive a construction which made it compulsory,
and not optional, to proceed by arbitration. Od
similar grounds it was held that no action lay in
the Superior Courts on a County Court judgment.
The provisions made by the County Court Act
for enforcing such judgments would have beeu
defeated, if the jurisdiction of the Huperior Courts
to entertain such an action had not oeen ousted (c),
Where an Act vested in the trustees of a loan
society all its money and effects, and the right of

(a) Per ABhhont J., Calu v. Knigkt, 3 T. B. 14fi,uid Shipimn
V. Benbett, 4 T. B. 116 ; f Jeuel M.B., JaoAi v. Brell, L. B.
20 Eq. 6 ; per Pollock B., Oram v. lirearen, 3 Ex. D. ''''.8. See also
Chadmci v. Ball, 14 Q. B. D. 855, whioh overrules tUe last oaso.

(I) Critp V. Bnabury, 34 B. B. 747. See also ManhaU v.
Nielullt (1852), 18 Q. B. 882; Wright v. Mrniareh ImeitmnI
Socy. (1877), 46 L. .T. Ch, 649 ; Hack v. London Protident Bid}.
Socj/. (1883), 52 L. J. Ch. 541 ; Municipal Bldg-'Sorj/. v, Keiil
(1884), 9 App. Gas. 260.

(i) 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, repealed 51 & 52 Vict. c. 43, a. 188;
Berkeley v. Elderkin (1853), 1 E. & B. 805. See Auttin t. Milli.
9 Ex. 288; Moreton v. Boll (1855), 10 Ex. 707. Compan
Edieord* v. Ooombe, 41 L. J. C. P. 202. Under s. 151, County
Courts Act, 1888, a judgment may ba removed into the High
Court.

AUAIKar OUSTING JVBMDIOTION. 23»

bringing and defending aotiong touching the pro-
pBrty and rights of the society, and, after enabling
them to lend money under certain oironmstances,
Md to take notes for such loans in the name of
their treasurer for the time being, to secure repay,
ment. authorised a justice, at the suit of the
treasurer to enforce payment by distress; it was
Held that the treasurer was limited to that
remedy (a). He had no rights but such as the
statute gave him, and therefore could not sue
except m the manner directed (A). But another
Court held that the trustees might sue on such
notes m the Superior Courts (c). Where an Act
imposed penalties and took away the Certiorari •
and a subsequent one, after increasing the penalties
and extending the restrictions of the first, provided
that aU "the powers, provisions, exemptions,
matters and things" contained in the earlier
statute should, except as they were varied, be as
effectual for carrying out the latter Act as if re-
enaoted therein it; it was held that the clause
which took away the Certiorari was incorporated

(a) Dundalk Ry. Co. v. Tapper (1841), 1 Q. B. 667. Ca^pare
MM„.. r. Lord (1879). 4 App. Cas. 182, for limitation. on\he
proportion disousaed in the text.

225 ; Pall„er v. Data, [1897] 1 Q. B, 257, 0. A.
(i) Albon V. Pi/ke, 11 L. J. C. P. 266.

m^

240

INTEBPBETATIOK OF STATUTES.

in the new Act, and consequently that the juris-
diction of the Superior Courts was ousted (a).

Where, indeed, a new duf,y or cause of action is
created by statute, and a special jurisdiction outol
the course of the common law is prescribed, there
is ni ouster of the jurisdiction of the ordinary
Courts, for they never had any. Thus, where a
repealed Act («) created penalties of .,£50 and f 10 ;
and, after enacting that the former should be
recovered in the Superior Courts, authorised
justices to impose the latter, with powers of miti-
gation ; it was held that the Superior Courts had
no jurisdiction in respect of the lower penalty (c).
Where it was enacted, by the Metropolis Manage-
ment Act, 1855, that the owners of the houses
which formed a street should pay the vestry the
estimated cost of paving it, and that the amount
should, in case of dispute, be ascertained by, and
recovered before, justices ; it was held that the
pecuniary obligation and the mode of enforcing it
were so indissolubly united, that no direct action
lay against an owner for his contribution (rf).

(o) B. V. Fell (1830), 1 B. & Ad. 380.

(6) 25 Geo. III. o. 51, repealed 2 & 3 Will. IV. o. 120, s. 1.

(«) Gates V. Knight, 3 T. B. 442. Compare Shipman v. Henheit,
4 T. E. 109; Leigh v. Kent, 3 T. E. 362; Balls v. Altami,
1 H. BI. 546.

(d) 18 & 19 Vict. c. 120; Si. Panarat v. BatI -hunj (1857), 26
L. J. C. P. 243. See also Blackburn v. Parkinton f'SSS), 28
L. J. M. 0. 7.

AGAINST OBEATWO NEW JURISDICTION. 241

The repealed 11 A 12 Vioi, 0. 123 (a) which

enactedthatifthe . w.er of th. offensive p^elts
doesnot remove the n.i3.-..e, the guardians may

them shall be deemed money paid for the use of the

Tr ' 'f T^ "" ''""^^'^^ '"' ^"''J^ ''y them in
the County Court, or before two justices, was held
to give exclusive jurisdiction to those tribunals (b)
though now by the Public Health Act, 1875, action'
may be taken m a Superior Court. But as it is not
to be presumed that the Legislature would in any
oa e oust the jurisdiction of a Superior Court
without a distmct expression of its intention, a
construction which would impliedly have tUs effect

1 „ff .T?'^.= ''^'"'"^^ ^^^'^ " ^°°W have
the effect of depriving the subject of his freehold
or of any common law right, such as the right of
tnal by jury, or of creating an arbitrary pro-
cedureCo). It has been said that the words
onfen-mg such a jurisdiction must be clear and
unambiguou8(rf);andthataninferiorCourtisnotto

(«) Repealed by 29 & 30 Viot. 0. 90 s 69
['') ^rlford Union v. Kimpton (1855), 25 L. J. M. 0 41
[<■) Warmek v. White, Banb 106 •» , » • „
%ni.l269 cited favTo^/iT L *"•""• ^ Lord

(1861). 30 L fn c S9."Lr "J": ""•"""''■ ^^''■■•■"

iw. B ^ • '«!• i^. 149, Looter v. Balcomb, 4 Binn 1H«
Sea ^. V. Couon 1 E. & E. 203 ; fe^. Ston,, 3 Q. B D leg
M Per Keat,ng J., Ja,ne, v. S. W. It. Co'.. KB. 7 E. 296.

16

* if

Ifij

ml

.i

/jmrnHo^uj^-i

242

INTEKPRETATION OF STATUTKB.

be construed into a jarisdiotion (a). An Act, foi
instance, which, in providing that compensation
should be made to all who sustained damage iu
carrying out certain works, enacted that " in case
of dispute as to the amount," it should be settled
by arbitration, has been held to be confined strictlj'
to cases where the amount only was in dispute,
and would not authorise a reference to arbitration,
where the liability to make any compensation was
in dispute (A). However, eflfect must of course
be given to the intention, where the Act, without
conferring jurisdiction in express terms, does so by
plain and necessary implication. Thus, an Act
which, without exp'essly empowering any tribunal
to try the offence, imposed penalties on nuy
person who exposed diseased animals for sale,
unless he showed, " to the justices before whom
he is charged," that he was ignorant of the
condition of the animals, and gave him an appeal
if he felt aggrieved "by the adjudication of
justices," was construed as plainly giving justices
jurisdiction over the offence (c). But where a
statute gives a right to recover expenses in a

(0) Per Forteaoue J., Pierce v. Hofper, 1 Stra. 260.

(1) S. V. Melrop. Com. Seaers, 1 B. A B. 694. But see
Brierley Elll Local Board v. Pearmll (1884), 54 L. .1. Q. B. 2.5
(H. L.).

(c) CMen v. Trimble (1872), L. R. 7 Q. B. 416 ; Johimii v.
Colam, L. R. 10 Q. B. 544 ; R v. WorceHenhire, 23 L. .1. M. C.
113.

AGAINST CBEAmo NEW JURISDICTION. 243

Court of summary jurisdiction from a person not
Qtherwise liable the jurisdiction of the High Court
IS ousted except by way of appeal (a)
One enactment has been considered as grantinR

The 31 & 32 Vict. c. 71, after reciting that it was
esirable that some County Courts should have
Admiralty jDrisdiction, and authorising the Queen
m council to confer such jurisdiction on any of
those Courts, empowered them to try certain
classes of cases over which the Court of Admiralty
had jurisdiction; directing the judge to transfer
ai-y case to the Admiralty, where the amount
claimed exceeded ^300, and giving also to the
latter Court, in all cases, not only an appeal, but
power to transfer to itself any suit instituted in
the lower Court. By a supplementary Act passed
m tlie following session (32 & 33 Vict, c SI) the
Connty Courts on which Admiralty jurisdiction
liad been thus conferred, were further authorised
to try any claim arising out of any agreement
made m relation to the use or hire of any ship
or m relation to the carriage of any goods in a«y
ship, where the claim does not exceed A'300 The
Court of Admiralty had no .jurisdiction over these
cases before the Act was passed, but it foUowed
that m thus giving the County Court this jurisdic-
"on, the statute also gave, by mere implication,

(o) Barraclough v. Brown, [18971 A. C. 015.

244

TNTERPBETATION OF STATDTEa.

to the Admiralty Court, not only appellate, but
original jurisdiction also ; besides introducing the
anomaly of dealing with small cases on different
principles of law from large ones; while the
apparent object of the enactments was merely to
distribute the existing Admiralty jurisdiction (a).

SECTION II. — THE CROWN NOT AFFECTED IF NOT NAMED.

On, probably, similar grounds rests the rule com-
monly stated in the form that the Crown is not
bound by a statute unless named in it. It has been
said that the law is prbnA facie presumed to be
made for subjects only (6) ; at all events, the Crown
is not reached except by express words or by neces-
sary implication, in any case where it would be
ousted of an existing prerogative or interest (c). It
is presumed that the Legislature does not intend

(a) See The Alitia (1880), S Ex. D. 327 ; Everard v. JfenrfaW,
L. R. 5 C. 1". 428 ; Cargo, ex Arjoi (1873), L. B. 5 P. C. 134 ;
Oaudet v. Brown (1872), L. B. 5 P. C. 134, and the oases there
cited. See also The Zela, [1893] A. C. 468 ; The Theta (1894), 63
L. J. Adm. 160 ; and note Davidiaon v. Bill (1901), 70 h. J. K. B.
788. The claims formulated in the following cases have beeu
held outside the jurisdiotion, B. v. City of London Court (1)
(1883), 53 L. J. Q. B. 28 ; The Zeus (1888), 13 P. D. 188 ; S. v
City of London Court, [1892] 1 Q. B. 273 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. 337.

(i>) milion V. BerUey, Plowd. 236 ; per Our., A.-G. v. Domld-
«0M, 62 E. R. 540

(c) Inst. 191, A.-G. V. Alhjood, Parker, 3 ; Bae. Ab. Prerogative
(E.) 5 (c); Co. Litt. 43b; Chit. Prerogative, 382

COVSTKUCTION AS BEOABDS THE CBOWN. 245

to deprive the Crown of any prerogative ri«ht or
property unless it expresses its intention' tot .0

Where therefore, the language of the statute is

divest or take away any prerogative or right from

of them by the general words of an Act of plr

iZlIt /'"\''^ ^''''^ Transfl^le . 1879
(00 & 61 Vict. c. 65), which vests the legal estate

:-rdirdrit:id:%rve:r-

SolicitortothelVeasuryaUhellu'^nri^L^

wWoh :r^^r "''"^^^ °^ ^^^^ °f Paniamen,
which authorise the taking of lands for railway o;
0 her purposes such as are contained in the Lands
Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, woiUd not apply
to Crown property, unless made so applicable in
express terms or by necessary inference (rf). Nor

ft.. Cro.Car.526; Huggin. v. BaMdge, Willes 041 .« ,
T^'ighl (1834), 1 A. A E. 434 n d 4S7 ■ P l^ '

60 L. J. Ch. 345. ^' • """ "■ '^""^ (1891).

W Bao^Ab.Prerog. (B.) 5; CrookeS Ca,e. Show. 208.

.ISa^^cS " ^'- ""■ -' '- ^- ^-

W 60 & 61 Vict. c. 65 ; Harlley. Me. 68 L. J. P. D .(: A 16
W8&9Viot.c.l8;C«.i^«5<.a...if«(l854),24L.'/ch.585.

I h

Mh

246

INTERFBBTATION OP STATUTKS.

would a provision in a local Act ordering that the
revenue of a corporation should be expended in a
specified way, and " should not be applied for any
other purpose whatsoever," take away the duty of
paying income tax to the Crown in the absence of
express words to that effect (a). Again, as it is a
prerogative of the Crown not to pay tolls or rates,
or other burdens in respect of property, it was long
since established that the Poor Act of Elizabeth,
which authorises the imposition of a poor rate on
every " inhabitant and occupier " of property in the
parish, did not apply to the Crown, or to its direct
and immediate servants, whose occupation is for
the purposes of the Crown exclusively, and so is,
in fact, the occupation of the Crown itself (/)).
Thus, property occupied by the servants of the
Crown exclusively for public purposes, as the Post
Office (c), the Horse Guards (d), the Admiralty (-'),

(a) Mene)Socluv.Lucai{18S3),8App.Caa.S91; Paddiuglon
Burial Board v. Inland Bev^uua Commimonera (1884), 53
L. J. Q. B. 224.

(6) 43 Eliz. 0. 2. Per Lords Weatbury and Oranworth,
Mergey Dmhi Co. v. Cameron (1864), 11 H. L. Gas. 443 ; Amknl
V. Sommen, 2 T. E. 372 ; B. v. Harrogate (1850), 15 Q. B. 1012 ;
B. V. St. Martin' t, L. E. 2 Q. B. 493.

(c) S»wV*v.aVminsAom(1857),26L.J.M.C.105; note remarks
of Fry L.J.,in Bray\. Lancaiter JJ. (1889),58 L. J. M. C, at p.oo.

(d) Amhenl v. Sommen (1788), 1 E. E. 497 ; B. v. Jay, 27
L. J. M. C. 25.

(e) B. V. Steaarl, 27 L. J . M. C. 81.

WNSTBUOnON AS BEaABDS THE CBOWN. 247

under Temtonal and Reserve Forces Act. 1907(A)
and even by local polioe(c), by the judJs Is
lodgings at the assi.es (</), b^ a county oortV.)
or for a sessions house(/). or a jail(j,,f o^Ty ^e
commissioners of public works and building i^
respect of a toll-bridge of which they Z b
oooupation as servants of the Crown (A), wis Lid
.xempt from poor rate(0. And property in the

(-.) Pear,on v. Holb„,„ Union, [18931 1 Q B ISQ ■ K .
vol..teer drill hall is not exempt fro J the opejo! •oft'
^n,tary provisions of the Metro^lis ManaVrent Aot « .^

(6) ffiTOB V. Thoma,, 80 L, J. K. B. 104. ' ■

('•) Lancaihire v. Stretford, 27 L. J. M C SOQ /'
V. CHe„n.Mi Union. [1891] 1 Q. B. sf^. '""*' ^*""""

(<0 Hodgion v. Corfu^e, 8 E A B llfi- /^ /
hA», 9 App. Cas. 81. ' ""''"'■ ^- ^"*'

(e) B. V. JIfoBciegfer, 23 h. J. M. 0 48

(/) NichoUonj.Bolbom A^,nen, Con.mUee. 18 Q B D

M. C. 224 ; Gamher v. £«d/<„rf, 3 E & R lift e .'

of Blackburn J. and Lo;^'ora;i c! I'^ST'^

Vamnon, 11 H. L Cas 44<1- T -.i ^ ^■' ■"'^"'^ •"<«*» Co. v.

«. be. Ap. 17. Tunmchffe v. Birtd„Ze, £0 Q. B D 450-
BrayLaneasnire Jueiices. 22 Q. B. D. 484; Dur,,a,."c C v
th>!,ter.le-Slreet, [1891] 1 Q. B. 330. ^'

(A) iJ. V. JBcCann, L. B. 3 Q. B. 677.

('■) CoMpor* i(«te V. Grindall, 1 T. E 338 ■ » v P

HKll

248

mTBBPBETATION OF 8TATDTM.

occupation of the sovereign would, also, not be
liable to the common law burden of sewers rate ;
one reason assigned being that they could not be
enforced (a). So, the Royal Dockyards at Dopt-
ford were held not assessable to the land tax(/-).
The Crown is not bound by s. 150, Public Health
Act, 1875, and therefore is not liable for the cost
of paving a street on which property in its occu-
pation abuts (c). But if the tax attached to tliu
land, and not to its owner or occupier, this rule
would not be applicable; and land charged with
it in the hands of a subject would not become
exempted on vesting in the sovereign (rf).

On the same general principle, the numerous
Acts of Parliament which have, at various times,
taken away the writ of Certiorari, have always
been held not to apply to the Crown (*•). So,
s. 5, 13 Geo. II. o. 18(/), which limits the time for

L. J. M. C. 81. See Bro. Ab. Prerog. du Ecy, 112 ; S. v. Cook,
3 T. E. 519 ; Wetlover v. Perkitu, 28 L. J. M. C. 227.

(o) Per Dr. Lushington, Smith v. Keal; 4 Hagg. 279; A.-G.
V. Donaldaon, 10 M. & W. 117.

(ft) A..G. V. Hill (1836). 2 M. & W. 160. As to cases where
on the facta this rule does not apply, see Colchater (Ld.) v.
Keumey (1867), 36 L. J. Ex. 172.

(c) 38 & 39 Vict. 0. 55 ; Bonuey U. D. C. v. Bennell, [19021
2 K. B. 73.

(d) Colcheiter (Ld.) v. Keuney (1866), 36 L. J. Ex. 173.

(e) See, for example, B. v. Cumberland, 3 B. & P. 354; B. v.
Allen, 15 Ea. t, 333 ; B. v. Boultbee, 43 B. E. 412.

(/) Eepe.iled 8. L. E. 1888.

■«' .ppij to sr?^ p^j ■« »? .PP..1 («), do

under any of f>.A t„i i ^ ^ *"® Crown

oeedings in the Excie e/t uoW J." *° P^""
or property of th« P,„ ""^ loucning the revenue

County Court or Tn?? " "•" "^^"^^"^ ''^ t^e

Baniclnptey (Z, ,' rj" "^ I'7tation(.) and
P y(/) have always been held not to bind

(«) B. V. Faremll, 3 Stra 120q • » ,
*• V- Berkle,, 1 Kenyon m! ' "'''""'"' ' ^'»'' «" "• ;

Wii.v.iJ.,dfc(1837).26L.J.M.ain
.MWv.P„-fcW, [1903] 1K.B. 209

t- J- Ex. 455; A.-O. ;. 2,„i* 4, ^^ ff ''■ «»"'*, 48
*»fcj V. Wild (1900), 69 L J Q B L „ " "' ^^'' »'-
CI-' »• 469. See al ; OHe„,alV\r '• ^"'''' ^"''^' '
(1884), 54 L. J. Ch. 327. ' ^'' "' "^ tr™„„, K^cp.

W 11 Kep. 68b and 74b- T. 1 . „,
««■ point; iJ„^„,,, 1 1'\ ^'"*'' - J'-f r. 4 B. . C. 138,

* See iJe not, 57 L J o TT'-f »■• ^^- ^^ ^h. D.

P'ovided by 4 & 5 Geo. V. c 59 k 1,, !k' . '' °°''' ^°^^^''-

«' tti^ Act relating to the rem'edi " " ' ' ""^ P™™'""^

g K) the remedies against the property of a

is i

2fiU

INTEBPBETATION (IK STATUTES.

the Crown; so, also, the Debtors Act, lb«l)('0,
and 6 k 6 £dw. VI. c. 16, against the sale oi
offi-'es (A). The Interpleader Act, 1 & 2 Will. IV
0. 58, was held not to apply to cases where the
Crown was inte'ested (c). The provision of the
Statute of Frauds, which made writs of executiou
binding on the goods of the judgment debtor only
from the time of the delivery of the writ to tho
sheriff for execution, was held not to affect the
eariif'. rule of law (which bound the goods from
the teste of the writ), where an extent was issued
at the suit of the Crown ((2). The Statute of
Amendments of 4 Edw. III. s. 1, o. 6, wliich
provided that clerical errors in records should be
amended at once, without giving advantage to
" the party " who had challenged the misprision,
did not include the Crown; for, it was said, it
had never been named "a party" in any Act of
Parliament («). Tho Locomotives Act, 1865, whicJi

debtor, the priorities of debts, the effect of ii composition or
scheme of arnuigement and the effect of discharge, shull bind
tho Crown."

(a) Be Stnilh, 2 Ex. 0. 17.

(b) Hnijgim v. Bambrldge, Willes, 241,

(c) Eepealed 46 & 47 Vict. c. 49, s. 3, but see s. 7 ; Cimtii v.
Maugham, 13 L. J. C. P. 17.

(d) B. V. Wym, Bunb. 39 ; B. v. JIfonn, 2 Stra. 764 ; Bunlcn v.
Kennedy, 3 Atk. 739 ; Gilei, v. Groter, 1 01. & F. 72 ; Upptm v.
Sumner, 2 W. Bl. 1251 ; B. V. Edwardt (1853), 23 L. J. i;x. 13.

(«■) B. V. Tuehin, 2 Lord Eaym. 1066. See also Tohin v. It-,
32 L. J. C. P. 216, and Tliomat v. B. (1874), 44 L. -J, Q I'., il.

0ON8TBUCT.ON A8 BEOABD8 T« CBOWV. ,81

, ^ / ""• 0- 43, whioh entitles fbv a 9^ «,-*>,
party, after the hearing h., .^ ^ ''^*''

he deems it frivnlnn= ? application, if

be refusedwhrldlT ^^''^ ^' «^^" ''^^e'

of, the AttoXGenta?':".' 7''' "'^ •^''«°*'-
«"perio, Cou.t.'n!tT^;\rde^rl^ Sh' 5 '^ '''
appealed against, but t"^ ml ^^ h 'l "T
costs as it dfiflm.. «* , °™®'' >8 to

Bench to noludTthe r''" '^ *'^ ^"^^"'«

order against it forth"' "*' *° '"''^°"«« ««

include the c!l! . ° """ ^''^" «''°"gh *"
Crown afplXl ^it^h t '^t '^'^"^^ '^ *^«

Crown oase'sX^ang^u^ :f r't^h T""'^ °^
Msts was con8tr„«H „= , authorising

- weU as to c 1 bet we f-*° "''^ ""^^ '^-'

oases between subject and subject (A).

(") 28 & 29 Viot. 0. 83 8 4 • r

(') Jfoore V. Smith (1859), 28 L .T Af r tM c

;,^c!i...i.ai.G. 126. See Theberife V.

- I.

252

INTBRPBETATION OP BTATUTU.

A Court of Snnunaiy Juriadiotion has, by reason
of the Sammary Jurisdiction Acts, power to award
costs for or agaiust the Crown in proceedings
taken under the Revenue Acts (a). But, although
the Crown be named in some sections of a statute,
this does not necessarily extend to it the operation
of other parts thereof (A).

It is said that the rule does not apply when the
Act is made for the public good, the advancement
of religion and justice, the prevention of fraud, or
the suppression of injury and wrong (c) ; " for
religion, justice, and truth are the sure supporters
of the crowns and diadems of kings " (U) : but it
is probably more accurate to say that the Crown
is not excluded from the operation of a statute
where neither its prerogative, rights, nor property,
are in question. The Statute de Donis (e) ; the

Laudrji, 2 App, Cas. 102, and Ctuhmg v. Dupui/, 5 App. Cas.
409 ; Temaitl v. Unioa Bank of CaiMiia, [1894] A. C. 31 ;
JKiwe. V. Parke,, [1896] A. C. 245.

(a) 11 & 12 Vict. 0. 43, 8. 18, and 42 k 43 Vict. c. 40, ». .53;
Vumat V. Pritrhard, [1903] 1 K. B. 209.

(b) Exp. Potlmiuler-Gemiral, 10 Ch. D. 596 ; Perry v. Ennci,
[1891] 1 Ch. 658 ; Whealon v. Maple Jc Ci>., [1893] 3 Ch. 48 ;
62 L. J. Ch. 963.

(c) Cage of Eeclenattical Pemons, 5 Rep. 14a: Magdalen Volhjr
Cnte, 11 Bop. 70l>-73a ; S. v. Armagh (Archbp.), Stra. 516 ; Bac.
Ab. Prerogative (E.) 5.

(d) 5 Bep. 14b.

(e) 13 Edw. I. ; WiUion v. Berklen, Plowd. 223 ; 11 Eep. 72a. -

fti. I'LttaS 'ST r •""'•'' "

th« P,.n„,„ "°«'on(t). Although by common law
the Crown has power to dismiss at pleasure a oivH

(») 20 Hon. m., repealed as to B. S I, R iSfi, . r
S- L. S. (I.), 1872 ; 2 Inst. 89. ' '' *' '" ^'■■

(*) Bepealed as to E 5? T, R larv
1872 ; 2 Inst. 142. ' ^' " *" ^'■- »• ^- «■ (I.)

W 2 Inst. 681.

W Co. Litt. 120a, note 3.
^ W 5 Bep. 14a; H R,p. gsb; fi. ,. ^,,„^, (,„,^^_ ^^^

(/) See Bao. Ab. Prerog. (B) 6.
(j) «. V. Wrighl, 1 A. & E. 434.
(*) De Bode v. fi., 13 q, -1 gg^
(■') ftr Cur., Id. 379.

P

[J

251

INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES.

or military ofiScer, a colonial statute (a) manifestly
intended for the benefit of officers, and inconsistent
with such a condition, restricts the power of the
Crown (6).

The Crown can direct the Treasury Solicitor to
act for a subject in any matter in which the Crown
has an interest, and if he so acts he becomes the
solicitor for the subject and is entitled to recover
any costs awarded the subject, notwithstanding
the fact that he has no certificate under the
Solicitors Act (c).

(o) New South Wale» Civil Service Act, 1884.

(6) Qould T. Stuart, [1896] A. C. 575.

(e) B. V. Canterbury (ArcUp.), [190.'5] 1 K. B. 289; 9. 12,
Attorneys and Solicitors Act, 1874, 37 & 38 Viot. c. 68, refer-
ences to " attorney " in this section repealed from " provided
.alway3,"S. L. B. (2), 1893.

CHAPTEB' VI.

SECTION r.-PRE8CMPII0K AGAINST INTENmo AN
EXCESS OF JUBI8DI0TI0N.

Anotheb general presumption is that the Legis-
lature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction

Jr'S'' *'' '^«'^'''*'°'^ °^ ^ countr; s Li.
tonal. The general rule is, that extra Lritorium
ju.^ djnu .June nonparetur ; leges e^ra teJZTZ
nm Mgantia) The laws of a nation apply 7oZ
ubjects and to all things and acts within i^
emtones, including in this expression not o2

of the adjacent country, but its ships, whether
armed or unarmed, and the ships of its's;brec f on

rivae ships within its ports. They apply also
oal foreigners within its territorie's (noVprivi
'eged hke sovereigns and ambassadors) as regards
--nal(A), police, and. indeed, all otier matters

(") Dig. 2, 1, 20.

^■Ov.i-„„i.„.a- L. B 5 P C 17q T* r ;■ ^ '°
«J iJ V « ° t^r- ''''''■ ''^ ^ ^- ^^O. --i -'e

i'fi

if*

iff

'i":i

I,

'«t?

256

INTEBPBETATION OP STATUTEa

except some questions of personal status or capacity,
in which, by the comity of nations, the law of their
own country, or the lex loci oetAs or contraet&n,
applies (a). This does not, indeed, comprise the
whole of the legitimate jurisdiction of a State ; for
it has a right to impose its legislation on its sub-
jects natural or naturalised (h), in every part of the
world (c) ; and on such matters as personal status
or capacity it is understood always to do so (d) ;

(a) See Nibayet v. Niboyet, 4 P. D. 1, per Brett L.J. ; San
Teodoro v. jSfln Teodoro, 5 P. D. 79 j comp. Worma v. De Valdor,
49 L. J. Ch. 261 ; Le Sueur v. Le Sueur, 1 P. D. 139 ; Ftreirace
V. Firebrace, 4 P. D. 63 ; Be Ooodmant Tnttt, 50 L. J. Ch. 425,
and note Le Meiurier v. Le Memrier (1895), L. J. P. C. 97, dis-
approving Niboyet v. Ifiboyet, mpra.

(b) Co. Litt. 129a ; Story, Oonfl. L. s, 21 ; Sutsex Peerage, 11
CI. & F. 85, 146 ; Mette v. Mette. 28 L. J. P. & M. 117.

(c) Our law has at different times made treason, treason-
felony, burning the King's ships and magazines, breaches of
the Foreign Enlistment Act, homicide, bigamy, procuratioD
(see 48 & 49 Vict. c. 69, s. 2, amended by 2 & 3 Geo. V. c. 20,
8. 1), and slave-dealiog, punishable when committed by Britiah
subjects in any part of the world ; also any offences committed
by them on board any foreign ship to which they do not beloDg
(57 & 68 Vict. c. 60) ; also, offences by them in or in relation to
native States in India (5 & 6 Geo. V. o. 61, ss. 124-129), in
Turkey, China, Siam, and Japan, and such other States as are
within the pr ^visions of 53 & 54 Vict. o. 37 ; and in some parts
of Africa and Polynesia (34 & 35 Vict c. 8 ; 35 & 36 Vict. c. 19;
38 & 39 Vict. c. 51).

(d) See ex. gr. Broolt v. Brook, 27 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 9 H. L. Cas.
193 ; Story, Oonl h. s. 114 ; loUey't Gate, Buss. & Ey. 237.

AGAINST EXOEEDING JUKISDICTION. 257

but With that exception, in the absence of an

fro" itTl! '' "^'""'^ °' *° ^« -f«-d eithe^
from Its language, or from the object or subject

onLat r'°* ^°^^''°* ^^^'^'^ ''« ^t'^'^te^

mnits of the United Kingdom (a). They are

Z Tad*?' ^"'' "^"''"^' ^' ^' --^« t° "t
effect had been inserted in them (ft). Thus a

woman who married in England, and afterwards
« abroad during her husband's li e, w'

eld not indictable under the repealed s atlte

r James I. against bigamy; for the offence w
mmitted out of the kingdom, and the Ac Z

ot in express terms extend its prohibition to
subjects abroad (c). Buts '57 nff.„
Person Ant isfii Z'"* «• ^7, Offences against the
ferson Act 1861, which enacts that " whomsoever

tne life of the former husband or wife wheth«r tht
second marriage shall have taken platTn tg,!
or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony "

(I'} Per Pollock C.B.. So^el^r v Ca««l 8 e. sr, .
FT Cur., J7,» 4„Wu., 1 Moo. P. c. N. 8.471 ' ""^

W 1 Jao. I. 0. 11 ■ 1 HhIb P fi rnc .,

•V.S. Wal., [ISaiJ A 0 is ^ ^"^'^ " ^-''- >•

LS.

■'' ,'!
fit

ii

i'

;|

1

1

k

258

INTERPRETATION OF STATDTBS.

extends to a seoond marriage celebrated beyond

the King's dominions (a). An act of bankruptcy

by a British subject committed abroad, such as an

assignment by a trader of all his eflfeots, did not

make him liable to the bankrupt laws until they

were amended by extending them expressly to

acts whether within the realm or elsewhere (i).

But the power conferred on the Court by b. 27,

Bankruptcy Act, 1883, now repealed and replaced

by s. 25 (6) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, to order

that any person who, if in England, would be

liable to be brought before it under the section,

shall bo examined in Scotland or Ireland, "or

in any other place out of England," does not

apparently extend to places abroad which are not

within the jurisdiction of the British Crown (c).

A statute which authorised a Court to make an

order against a British subject after he had been

served with a summons, was held not to give

jurisdiction to make it when the service had been

effected abroad (d). And it has also been held that

a provision that service may be effected by leaving

(«) 24 & 25 Viot. c. 100 ; S. v. Buuetl, [1901] A. 0. 44G.

(6) InglUi V. arml. 3 T. E. 530 ; tforden V. Jamet, 2 Dick.
533. See 6 Geo. IV. o. 16, s. 3; 32 & 33 Viot. c. 'l, 8. 6;
46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 4 ; and see as to existing law, 4*5
Geo. V. 0. 59.

(c) Drucker. Be (No. 2), [1902] 2 K. B. 210.

(d) 7 & 8 Vict. 0. 101 ; B. v. Lighifool (1856), 25 L. J. M. C.
115.

AGAINST BXOBBDINO JUBISDICTION. 259

the summons at the " last place of abode " of the
person to be served, is not to be interpreted as
meamng that the summons may be left at his last
place of abode in England, where he had sub-
sequently obtained a place of abode abroad (a).
The alleged father of a bastard child who left
England before the child's birth and did not return
till the ciiild was more than twelve months old
was held to have "ceased to reside in England
withm twelve months after the birth of such child,"
80 as to give the justices jurisdiction to adjudicate
upon a summons taken out within twelve months
after his return (6). 5 & 0 Will. IV. c. 63 (re-
pealed and re-enacted by 41 & 42 Vict, c 49
S3. 15 and 86), which prohibits the sale of liquids
otherwise than by imperial measure, would not be
considered as affecting a contract betwt a British
subjects for the sale of palm oil to be -measured
and delivered on the coast of Africa (c). A
different construction would have involved the
absurd supposition that the Legislature intended
that English subjects should carry English

L. J. M. 0. 57 ; S. v. Farvier, [1892] 1 Q. B. 637 ; Burbury v
Jackmn, [1917] 1 K. B. 16; Grocock v. Or<Kock, [1919] W n'
103. But a/.7er where he has not obtained a place of abode
ibtoad; B. v. Webb, [1896] 1 Q. B. 487.

(I) R. V. Emm, [1896] 1 Q. B. 228.

W Houeter v. Cahlmann, 8 Ex. 361.

260

INTEBPBKTATION OF BTATXTTES.

measures abroad (a) ; besides setting aside, by a
side-wind, the general principle that the validity
of a contract is determined by the law of the place
of its performance. Under that general principle,
any statute which regulated the formalities and
ceremonials of marriage, would, in general, be
limited f.milarly in effect to the territorial
jurisdiction of Parliament (h).

But a different intention may be readily collected
from the nature of the enactment. The whole aim
and object of the Eoyal Marriages Act, 1772 (12
Geo. III. c. 11), for instance, which was, according
to the preamble, to guard against members of the
royal family marrying without the consent of
the sovereign, and which makes null and void
the marriage of every descendant of George II.
without the consent of the reigning sovereign,
would ha^e been defeated, if a marriage of such
a descendant in some place out of the British
dominions had not fallen within it. It was accord-
ingly held that the statute imposed an incapacity,
which attached to the person and followed him all
over the world (c) ; though the marriage were valid
according to the law of the country where it was
celebrated (d). So, the Marriage Act, 1835 (3 & 6

(a) Per Parke B., Botteter v. Cahlmann, at p. 363.
(6) Scrimthire v. Serimahire, 2 Hagg. Cons. 395 ; Story, Confl.
L. s. 221.

(c) The Susstx Peerage, 11 CI. & F. 86.
Id) Saifl V. Kelly, 3 Knapp, 257.

AGAINST EXOBEDINO JUBISDIOtlON. 261

Will. IV. 0. 54), which declared " aU marriages
between persons within the prohibited degrees "
null and void, was held to create a personal in-
capacity in aU British subjects domiciled in the
United Kingdom, thougn married in a country
where such marriages are valid (a). Where an
Enghshman, after marrying an Englishwoman in
England, became domiciled in America, it was
held that he continued subject to the Matrimonial
Causes Act, 1857 (A). The Fatal Accidents Acts,
1846 and 1864, apply for the benefit of the repre-
sentatives of a deceased foreigner, who while on
the high seas in a foreign ship sustains a fatal
injury owing to the negligence of a British ship (c)
The rule of the Elementary Education Act, 1870
which vacates the seat at the board of any member
who had been punished with imprisonment for any
cnme, includes crimes committed against the
Crown out of England (d).
This wider effect has been given even to a

(a) Brook v. Brook. 27 L. J. Ch. 401 ; 9 H. L. Cas. 193. See
Story, Confl. L. s. 86, and alao s. 100; 7 Edw. VII. o. 47, vali-
dates marriage with a deceased wife's sister.

(h) Deck V. Dec* (1860). 29 L. J. P. M. & A. 129 ; see Bond
V. £<md^(1860), Id. 143; and see Niboget v. Niboyel (1878),

nim^o ^-T"'- "■ ^^' ^^ * ^ '^'°'- "■ »5: Oa^duonv.mU.
[1901] 2 K. B. 606.

{d) 33 & 34 Vict. 0. 75, Sched. II., Pt. I., r. 14 ; Connbeare v
Lmion School Bd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 118.

•nj

h\

f'l

! ■

262

INTBBPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

oriminal statute, where suoh mast have beeu
manifestly its intention. The Slave Trade Act,
1824 (5 Geo. IV. o. 113), which made it felony for
" any person " to deal in slaves, or to transport
them, or equip vessels for their transport, was held
to apply to British subjects committing any such
offences on the coast of Africa, the notorious scene
of the crimes which it was the object of the Act to
suppress (a) ; if not in every other part of the world
also (6) ; though it was not in e3> press terma
declared to be applicable abroad. As the Courts
of British Colonies were empowered by Act of
Parliament to punish certain offences committed
at sea with, among other things, transportation,
the Act which abolished transportation and sub-
stituted penal servitude, was held to extend to the
Colonies, though it made no mention of them ((')•

SECTION II. — PRESUMPTION AGAINST A VIOLATION Of
INTEBNATIONAL LAW.

Under the same general presumption that the
Legislature does not intend to exceed its juris-
diction, every statute is to be so interpreted and

(o) R. V. Zuluela, 1 Car. & K. 215; Santoi v. IlUdge, 28 L, J.
0. P. 317 ; overruled on another point, 29 L. J. C. P. 318.

(b) Beeper Bramwell B., 29 L. J. 0. P. 352.

(c) 12 & 13 Vict. 0. 96 (amended 23 & 24 Vict. c. 88, s. 1);
20 & 21 Vict. 0. 3 ; R. v. Mount, h. E. 6 P. 0. 283.

HABMONV WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. 283

•PpUed, as far M its language admits, as not to be
moonBstent with the comity of nations, or with
the estabhshed roles of international law (a) If
aierefore. it designs to eflfeotuate any suoh object!
It must express its intention with irresistible clear-
ness, to induce a Court to believe that it enter-
tamed it ; for if any other construction is possible.
It would be adopted, in order to avoid imputing
raoh an intention to the Legislature (b). AU
general terms must be narrowed in construction
to avoid it (c).

For instance, although foreigners are subject to
the criminal law of the country in which they
commit any breach of it, and also, for most pur-
poses, to Its civil jurisdiction, a foreign sovereign,
an ambassador, the troops of a foreign nation, and
ite pubbo property are, by the law of nations, not
subject to them (d). and statutes would be read as

Voelkorreoht s. SiTj^r Dr. Lushington, Tie ZoU^e!n. Swab.

»' , ^5!c^"""^'"- ^'^^- 293. See also Boche/oucaM y
Bmutead (1896), 66 L. J. Oh. 75 ™

(i) P^ Cur., US. V. FieHer. 2 Cranoh, 390, and Murray v.
CiarmiBj Betty, Id. H8. "

(<■) Per Lord SteweU, Le Loui, (1817), 2 Dods 229
W meat. Elern^ Int. L., pt. 2, o. 2 ; see the oases collected

m * P- D. 39. See also The RIpon City (1897), 66 L. J P
■i Uo93), 63 L. J. Q. B. 593.

.jm^

264

INTERPBITATION OF STATUTES.

'tAoitly embodying this rule. Hence whilst the
ambassador of a foreign State is in this country,
and accredited to the sovereign, the Statute of
Limitation does not begin to run against his
creditors, as he could not be served with process
during that period (a). So, it is an admitted
principle of public law that, except as regards
pirates jure gentium, and, perhaps, nomadic races
and savages who have no political organisation (6),
a nation has no jurisdiction over offences com-
mitted by a foreigner out of its territory, including
its ships and waters as already mentioned (>;) ;
and the general language of any criminal statute
would be so restricted in construction as not to
violate this principle. Thus, s. 8 of the repealed
9 Goo. IV. c. 31 (re-enacted by s. 10, 24 & 25

(a) 21 Jao. I. c. 16 ; 4 & 5 Anno, c. 16, a. 19 ; 7 Anne, a. 12,
s. 3 ; Mumnu Bey v. Oadbait, [1891] 2 Q. B. 362; RtfMk of
Bolivia ExplotatioH Syiulicate, h n (1914), 83 L. J. Ch. 226.

(6) See ex. gr. Ortolan, Dipl. de k Mer, i. 285. By 34 & 35
Vict. 0. 8, offencea oommitted within 20 miles from our West
Afrioua Settlementa on British aubjects, or residents witliiii
tt e settlements, by persons not the subjects of any civilised
power, are made cognisable by the Superior Courts of the
Settlements.

(c) Sup. 255. See Wheaton's Elem. Internat. L., pt. 2, c. 2,
B. 9 ; r/i« ParlemetU Beige, 5 P. D. 197 ; B. v. Anderion, h. K.
1 C. C. 161 ; B. V. Seherg, Id. 264 ; B. v. Carr, 10 Q. B. D. 76;
B. V. Lopei, 27 L. J. M. C. 48; B. v. Lesley, 29 L. J. M. C. 97.
See as to ships, tlie judgment of Lindley J., B. v. Keyn, 2 Ex. D.
63 ; but see Carr v. Fraeit Timet <t Co., [1902] A. C. 176.

gfil

UABMOKT WITH INTKBNATIONAL LAW. 205

Vict, 0. 100), which enacted that when any person,
feloniouslj' injured abroad or at sea, died in
England, or receiving the iiyury in England,
died at sea or abroad, the offence should be dealt
with in the country where the death or injury
occurred, would not authorise the trial of a
foreigner who inflicted a wound at sea in a foreign
ship, of which the sufferer afterwards died in
■ England (a). So, it has been repeatedly decided in
America that an Act of Congress which enacted
that any person committing robbery in " any vessel
on the high seas" should be guilty of piracy,
applied only to robbery in American vessels, and
not to robbery in foreign vessels even by an
American citizen (6). An Act of . rliament which
authorised the commanders of our ships of war to
seize and prosecute "all ships and vessels " engaged
in the slave trade was construed as not intended
to affect any right or interest of foreigners contrary

';(

(a) B. V. Lewi,. 26 L. J. M. 0. 104. See also B. v. Defardo
9 R. R. 693 ; B. v. De Matto,, 7 C. & P. 458 ; N,ja Hoong v. b'..
7 Cox, 489 ; B. v. Bj«n,en, 34 L. J. M. C. 180. As to offences
committed within Territorial Waters, see 41 & 42 Viot. o. 73.
Sec. 267 Merc. Shipping Act, 1854 (repealed by Merc. Shipping
.\ct, 1894), would seem to have been Umited to British subjects.
See also s. 527 ; Harri, v. Franamia, 2 C. P. D. 173.

(b) V. S. V. Uoward, 3 Wash. 340 ; U S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat.
610; ir. S. V. Ktinloik, 5 Wheat. 144; U. S. v. Keuler, Bald. 15,
cited hy Cockburn G..I., B. v. JKf jh, 2 Ex. D. 172.

>■» INTBBPBKTATION OF BTATUTE&

to the kw of nationB(a). Though ■peaking in just
terms of indignatiou of the traffic in human boingo,
it apoke only in the name of the British nation!
Its prohibition of the trade as contrary to the
principles of justice, humanity, and sound policy,
applied only to British subjects ; it did not render
it unlawful as regarded foreigners (6). It was even
held that a foreigner who was not prohibited by
the law of his own country from carrying it on, •
was entitled to recover in an English Court
damages for the seizure of a cargo of his slaves by
a British man-of-war; for, our Courts being open
to aU aliens in amity with us, and the act of the
man-of-war being wrongful, the only question was
what iiyuiy the plaintiff had sustained from it («).
But a British subject resident in an enemy
country is not empowered by s. 6 of the repealed
Naturalisation Act, 1870, to become naturalised
in that enemy country during time of war with
this country, and the act of becoming naturalised
under such circumstances constitutes the crime of
high treason (d).

(a) U loui,, a Dods. 9U ; St. Juan Nepomuceno, 1 Hagg. 265 •
The AnUhpe, 10 Wheat. 66. See also S. v. Sena, 1 Den. 104.
Oontpare The Amedte, 1 Aoton, 240.

(6) Per Best J,, 3 B. 4 Aid. 358.

(<•) Madraio v. WiUe.. 22 B. B. 422. See also Sn«t.., v.
nUdje, 29 L. J. C. P. 348. Compare Forbe, v. Oochram; 22 E. B.
402.

(d) 33 & 34 Viot. o. 14 ; practically re-enacted by i ,i 5

HABMOUr WITH INTRBNATIONAL LAW. 2B7

Although a foreigner residing in England (a) who
contract, debt., even abroad (A), and commits an
«t of bankruptcy in England, would be liable to
the Engliri, bankrupt laws; he would not fall
within them if he committed the act of bankruptcy
abroad, although the enactment made it an act of
bMikruptcy, whether committed "in England or
el«>where"(«). The Rules of Court, 1883 (now
cancelled), directing how writs were to be served
on persons sued in the name of their firm, did not
give junsdiction over foreign firms whose location
was abroad (rf). So an English Court would have
Geo. y. 0^17. 8«, B. v. i,«* (1903), 72 L. J. K. B. 167
Sk Bl«>pa»^ V. M«ai (1918). 18 L. O. B. 308, and ife, v
Ommamdtuf Offlar Middhum Be,ji,M„l, [1917] 3 K B 129

1' *\t" ^''"- "• "''• «• 6 (1 -0; «p«.led by 4 & 0 Goo. V
0. fiv, t. 68, Sohed. 6 : Be Norri,, 6 M. B. B. Ill

(6) Mxp. PoKol, 46 L. J. Bank. 81.

(.) Ooah, y. Vogder, [1"01] A. 0. 102; Blain, Exp.. 12 Oh
D. 522 ; P.„r««, Be. [1892] 2 Q. B. 263. Bee also SmUh, B^'.,

r Mr I '■ ™" "■ *"^'' ^ *PP- ''»»■ 386 ; O'iojAfc,,
i^., 40 L. J. Bank. 18 ; Dan. v. Pari, 42 L. J. Ch. 673 ■ £«,
Cmpin, 43 L. J. Bank. 65. '

'f ,^'i^'''®' '"«"»'1«J; 8«ef<"P».ent praotioe Order 48a,
Tn 'i 1 ^- °- ^^^^ = ^""^ *■"• -B""* V- -P«'~. [1891]
r ;. Mf!f ' *"'""''• ^™*«/"''- 23 Q. B. D 536; Do6«m v
?«(., [1891] 2 Q. B. 92 ; Orant v. A,der,a«. [1892] 1 Q B 108

;8931 2 Q. B. 96; TTorccfer Banking Co. v. f ,V6o»*, 1 18341
1 g. B. 784 ; Jlfof /rfr v. Burn., [1805] 2 Ch. 630.

f.M

288

INTBBPRETATION OP BTAT0TB8.

no jurisdiotion to wind up a foreign company
having no branch in England (a). And s. 17,
4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 17, replacing s. 2, NaturaUsation'
Act, 1870, which enacts that " real and personal
property of every description may be taken,
aoqmred, held, and disposed of by an alien in
the same manner in all respects as by a natural-
born British subjeot," has been held in a case
decided under the earlier Act not to entitle a
Will to probate here which was made by an alien
whose domicile of origin was English, but who
was domiciled abroad at the time of making such
WiU and of her death, the Will having been
executed according to the forms required by
English law, but not in manner required by the
law of the country of her domicile (b). And an
Act which gave the Court of Admiralty jurisdic-
tion over "aU claims whatsoever" relating to
salvage reward for saving lives has been held not
to extend to the salvage of life on a foreign ship
or the supply of necessaries when the vessel is
more than three marine miles from our shore (c).

(a) Lloyd IhUiano, Be, 29 Ch. D. 219 ; Butkelej/ v. Sclmlz, L. E.
3 P. 0. 764. See Colquhmm v. Hedion, 25 Q. B. D. 129.

(6) 24 & 2S Vict. 0. 114 ; Bloxam v. Fame, 53 L. J. P. D. It ^.
26; Lyne't SelOement TrvtU, aibbi, In re, [1919] 1 Ch. 80;
Simpson, In re, [1916] 1 Ch. 502.

(c) 17 & 18 Vict. 0. 104, 88. 458, 476 ; The Man«e>, Lush.
182. But see Merchant Shipping Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Vict. c. 60),
8. 544 (1) ; The Pacific, [1898] P. 170, on which see Jor,jema v.

HARMONY WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW. 269

So, as it 18 a rule of all systems of law that real
property is exclusively subject to the laws of the
State within whose territory it Ues, any Act which
dealt m general terms with the real estate of a
bankrupt or lunatic testator, for instance, would be
construed as not extending to his lands abroad (a)
or in our Colonies, unless it clearly appeared that
the Act was intended to reach them(*) But a
statute which imposed a stamp duty on aU convey-
ances of land executed in England would obviously
not ^-^ 80 limited in construction (c).

It being also a general principle that personal
property has, except for some purposes, such as
probate (rf), no other sUu.'^ than that of its owner
the right and disposition of it are governed by the
aw of the domicile of the owner, and not by the
law of their local situation («). The Bankruptcy

'rrastip's^"^' ''' '" ""^ "•"• '■ "'"■■'* ^''''^'

or. Z " ''■ ^O'"^^- 1 H. Bl. 665 ; Phillip, y. Bunter

ll\t r f ""y- "^°"'' ^ ^- ^- ^53 •■ »«'*'»«"- ««. L. R. 2
Ch n 'r^l Z- '^"'*"^' ''• ^- " ^- ^" •■ '^"•■'^ -• -B.-^/^*. 21

23 Ch D. 743 ; Pep.n v. Bruyire (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 39 ; Story
Oonfl. L. SB. 428, 551, etc. ^'

(t) See BewiU't Ettale. Be 6 W B <i<17 /^ r .

Wi- Co., fie. 45 L. J. C^. 446 "^^ ''»'"•»'"""»'

(<•) Wright. lie (1855), L. J. Ex. 49.

(i) See Bart v. flerwiV, L. B. 8 Ch. 860

(e) Story, Confl. L. s. 376. See ex. gr. Elli.it. Jte. 39 W. B. 297.

m

i%

270

INTKHPHBTATION OF BTATUTBS.

Acts, therefore, which affect an assignment of
a bankrupt's personal property, would properly
be construed as applying to such property else-
where (a).

When an Act imposes a burden in respect of
personal property, it would be construed, as far as
its language permitted, as not intended to contra-
vene the general principle (&). Thus, 86 Geo. III.
0. 62, which imposed a duty on every legacy
given by any " will of any person out of his
personal estate," and the Succession Duty Act,
1853 (16 & 17 Vict. c. 51), which imposed a duty
on every " disposition of property " by which " any
person " became " entitled to any property on the
death of another," were held not to apply where
the deceased was a foreigner, or even a British
subject domiciled abroad, though the property was
in England (c). But they would affect personal
property abroad, if the deceased was domiciled

(a) Bee Alkituon, Be, 21 Oh. D. 100.

(b) See ex. gr. Ormfett v. Inl. Bet., IS L. J. ESx. 46S.

(c) Be Bruce, 2 Or. & J. 436; ArtuM v. Arnold, 39 R. B.
232 ; Thornton v. The Adt.-Oen. (1818), 13 Gl. &'E.l; discussed
in Laaim r. Inl. Bet. Oommimionert, [1896] 3 Ir. B. 418, and
approved in Harding v. Queeneland Commieeioner of Slattips
(1898), 67 L. J. P. C. 144; Sullg v. A.-a., 29 L. J. Ex. 464;
Be Aikimon, sup. Comp. A.-O. v. Campbell, L. B. 5 H. L.
624 ; Be Cigalas Settlement, 7 Gh. D. 351 ; Colquhoun r. Brooh,
14 App. Gas. 493 ; London Bank of Mexico v. Apthorpe, [1891]
2 Q. B. 378; Sob Panto % Co. v' Carter, [1896] A. C. 31.

HABMONY WITH INTBBNATIONAL LAW. 271

in England, though a foreigner (a). Foreigners
residing abroad but oarrsdng on business in England
by agents obtaining orders in England, are liable
to income tax on profits so made (unless aU
contracts for the sale and aU deliveries of the
merchandise to customers are made in a foreign
country) (b), Schedule D of 16 & 17 Vict. o. 34,
imposing liability to assessment on persons resident
abroad, but deriving profit from trade carried on in
this country. The old jurisdiction of Interpleader
did not empower our Courts to bar the claim of a
foreigner residing abroad (c).

It is hardly necessary to add, however, that if
the language of an Act of Parliament, unam-
biguously and without reasonably admitting of
any other meaning applies to foreigners abroad
or IS otherwise in conflict with any principle of
international law, the Courts must obey and
administer it as it stands, whatever may be the

(iS'sfL. j.Sno'" "^ '■ '^- '''• '"^ - '^■

{b) Pomn,^ y. Aplhorpe (1886), 56 L. J. Q. B. 165; Werl» v
^1^ 67 1.3 Q. B. 323 ; Orainger v. Oough, [1896] A. C
iiS. But see Kodak, Um. v. Clarke, 72 h. 3. K. B. 369 • Oramo
pJ»»« Co. V. Stardey, 77 L. J. K. B. 834 ; Ooerz v. B.H.Vs L J
K. B. 448 ; De Been Minet v. Hoik, 75 L. J. K B 858

W P«(or» V. Campbell, 13 L. J. Ex. 85 ; i.W..y v. Barren, 6
0^ B. 291. But see Credit, Ger«ndeu,e v. Tan Weede, 12 Q B D
m^on wtoch see Be Buefield, 55 L. J. Oh. 467. approved in
iMoHl V. Mttcphermn (1889), 88 L. J. Q. B. 496.

t I

ff

272

INTEBPRETA'nON OF STATUTES.

responsibility incurred by the nation to foreign
powers in executing snch a law {a) ; for the Courts
cannot question the authority of Parliament, or
assign any limits to its power (i). They could
not, therefore, properly put a construction upon
a statute difierent from that which they would
otherwise give to it, merely because its language
would otherwise fail to give to a foreigner the full
advantage of the provisions of a treaty (c).

Sec. 4, Statute of Frauds, which enacts that " no
action shall be brought " in respect, among others,
of contracts not to be performed within a year,
unless they be in writing, was construed literally
as regulating the procedure of our Courts, and,
therefore, ati prohibiting a suit in England on a
contract made in France and in accordance with
French Law, but not in conformity with the

(o) Per Cur., The Marianna Flora, 11 Wheat. 40 ; The Zdl-
Herein, Sn >b. 96; The Johannes, Lush. 182; The Amalia, 32
h. J. P. M. & A. 191 ; EUie v. MeHenry (1871), 40 L. J. C. 1',
109, 115. As to the Hovering Acts (39 & 40 Vict. o. 36, s. 179
(amended by SO & 61 Viot. c. 7), embodjung the 16 & 17 Vict.
0. 107, s. 212), see Le Louie, 2 Dods. 245 ; Church v. Hulibarl, 1
Cranoh, 187. See also 2 & 3 Viot. o. 73, repealed by Slave
Trade Act, 1873.

(6) Oomf. Bonham's Cote (1609), 8 Bep. 118a, commented on
in Kemp v. NeviUe (1861), 31 L. J. C. P. 158. See also Day\.
Satadge, Hob. 87; London (City of) v. Wood, 12 Mod. 083;
1 Kent Comm. 447.

(c) CaUfomian Fig Syrup Co., Be, 40 Ch. D. 620.

AB TO CONFBEEINO BIGHTS ON FOBEIONEB8. 273

formalities required by our law (a). But this con-
struotion has been questioned (6) ; and having
regard to the principle under consideration, the
enactment might reasonably have been confined
to those contracts which it was within the province
of Parhament to regulate.

SECTION I1I._H(TW FAB STAT0TE8 CONFEBBINO BIGHTS
AFFECT FOBEIONERS.

It may be added, in connection with this topic
that as regards the question how far statutes which
confer rights or privileges are to be construed as
extending to foreigners abroad, the authorities are
.ess clear. It has been said, indeed, that when
personal rights are conferred, and persons filling
any character of which foreigners are capable are
mentioned, foreigners would be comprehended in
Uie statute (c). On the other hand, it has been laid
down that, m general, statutes must be understood
as applying to those only who owe obedience

Monor JJ., Jone. v. TicMa Graring Dock, 2 Q. B. D 32.S
m bee WxUiaim v. Wheeler 8 C. B N S 2qq ■ n:h

W P«r M,ule J., Jeffery. v. Boo^g. 4 H. L. Cas. 895-
ccnment^ on and explained in Fairley v. Bo„,ey (1879). 48
L- J^Ch. 697; note especially judgment of Lord Blackburn:

18

4

274

II)TBB.'BBTATION OF STATUTES.

to the Legislature which enacts them, and whose
interests it is the duty of that Legislature to pro-
tect ; that is, its own subjects, including in that
expression, not only natural bom and naturalised
subjects, but also all persons actually within its
territorial jurisdiction ; but that as regards aliens
resident abroad, the Legislature has no concern to
protect their interests, any more than it has a
legitimate power to control their rights (o). In
this view, it would be presumed, in interpreting a
statute, that the Legislature did not intend to
legislate either as to their rights or liabilities ; and
to warrant a different conclusion, the words of the
statute ought to be express, or the context of it
very clear (i). On this principle, mainly, it was
held that the Act of Anne, which gave a copyrighi
of fourteen years to " the author of any work," did
not apply to a foreign author resident abroad (t).
The decision would probably have been different if
the author had been in England when his work

(a) See per Jervis C.J., Jefferyt v. Bootey, i H. L. Cas. 946 ;
per Lord Otanworth, Id. 95S ; per Wood V.C., Cope v. Doherlij,
4 K. & J. 367 ; per Lord Esher M.E., Co/juAoim v. UeMm. %
Q. B. D. 135. See also Adam v. Britiak a«d Foreign Sleamhip
Oo. (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 844. Ctmp. per Lord Westbury,
Soulledge v. Low, L. E. 3 H. L. 119.

(6) Per Turner L.J., Cope v. Doherti) (1858), 27 L. J. Ch.
609 ; and see S. v. Keyn (1876), 46 L. J. M. 0. 17, at p. 64.

(c) 8 Anne, o. 19; Jefferyt v. Boneey, 4 H. L. Cm. SIS;
dubitante Lord Cairns, RouUedge v. iow, L. B. 3 H. L. 107.

AS TO COUFUBMNO BfOHTO ON FOBMONERB. 275

was publiBhed(a) It is no. provided by s. 35,

It „f T*^* ^'^' ^^"' ^^''t ''here in the

Me of an nnpablished work, the making of which

.tended over a considerable time, the oonditi^^^

of the Act conferring copyright shaU apply if the

author was during any substantial pa^t of that

»;;^ ofV m' ''^^■'°* "' '^ '''''''' ^'^^ the
parts of as Majesty's dominions to wHch the Act

enfatied to mamtenance, and to gain a settle-

rh"!?' ^ P""' ^*^«('')- A"d it has been
decided that the Fatal Accidents Act, 1846 (9 & 10
Vict, c 98), which gives a right of action to the
persoi^ representative of a person killed by a
|m,ngful and actionable act or neglect, extends to
m r'"'«"*»f « of «^ foreigner who has been
Med on the high seas, in a foreign ship, in a
oolhsion with an EngUsh vessel (d)

On a,e other hand, it has been held that the
M8 Vict c. 01, which empowered the mother
of a natural child to sue its putative father for its

who tad become pregnant in England, but had
given birth- to the child abroad (e). The history,

rM f''.' ^ °""^°'^'' °- •^'/-*' V Bo:.ey. sup. p. 274

^ Z ?" '"" ''''"^^" ™ ^o^^' "'■ " Copyright*
(<;) B. V. Btulboune, i East, 103.

W Davidimn v. ffi«, cited sup. p. 261.

W £. V. Blene, (1848). 13 Q. B. 763. '

276

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

as well as the language of the enactment, showed
that the liability arose from the birth of the child
in this country (a). But, on the other hand, the
mere fact that the child was bom abroad does not
prevent an order being made when it is shown the
status of the child is not governed by foreign
law(/(), and in the converee oaae of conception
abroad and birth in Englaud, the law would extend
to the mother (c). The benefit of those enact-
ments which, prior to the repealed Merchant
Shipping Act Amendment Act, 1862(d), limited
the liability of shipowners for damage donefc),
without their own fault, by their servants, to
other ships, was held not to extend to foreign
vessels (/); one reason being that the object of
the Legislature, in giving such a privilege, was to
encourage the national shipping only, by removing
the terrors of a liability commensurate with the
damage done (g). But they were held to protect

(o) Per Coleridge J., Id. 773.

(6) It. V. Bump^re}t Ward, Exp., [1914] 3 K. B. 1337.

(c) Hamploii v. Bickanl, 43 L. J. M. C. 133.

(rf) Bepealed by 57 & 58 Viot. o. 60, s. 745.

(e) See 57 & 58 Viot. o. 60, s. 502; Aiialic Petroleum Co. v.
Lemard; Carrying Co., [1914] 1 K. B. 419, C. A. ; Ingram, *
Soyle V. Senicet Marilime da Treport, [1914] 1 K. B. 541, C. A.

(/) But see now 57 & 58 Vict. o. 60, s. 503 : The 0«vr II.
[1919] P. 171.

to) The Carl Johann (1821), cited, 1 Hagg. Adni. 113:
Cope V. Doherly (1858), 4 K. & J. 367. See notes on this case,

BBM.DIB8 OOVEBKED BT LEX FORI 277

ment on f. Tii ' '^*°*' °° ^^''^ enoroaoh-

instanoe, was liabll r,"*'^?-. ^ foreigner, for
a ,l«hf T *° ^'■''^^* "» *h'8 country for

a debt contracted abroad, though it would have

n. *»<.™ Ush 410 "^ ^''''^' '" ^- •'• ^'"'- ''■ See
W 0.»^«/ /„„ Scre« Co. v. SW,™,,^ 29 L. J 01. 877
f f*« '<'»«'"• (1863), 1 Moo. P. c. N 8 471
(•■) See Tie i)«m/r,v,, Swab, 63 ' ' "

, J0TO6, V. Cridtt T.gomaii, 12 Q, E. D. o89.

7!

(

rs

nrrEBPBRTATiON or btatutb§.

exposed him to no inch peril there ; and be would
be barred in our Courts by our Statute of Limita-
tion, though he was not by the prescription of hin
own country (a). The provisions of the Admiralty
Court Act, 1861 (6), which give (by ss. 4 and 6) to
the Court of Admiralty jurisdiction over any
claims, for the building of any ship, and also for
necessaries supplied to any ship elsewhere than
in the port to which she belongs, unless the owner
be domiciled in England, were at one time held to
be confined to British ships, on the ground of the
improbability that the British Parliament had
intended to legislate for foreigners in foreign
ports (c), but this no longer represents the law ((/).
And the seamen of a ship of any nation are
entitled to sue for wages in the Admiralty Court,
under s. 10 of the same Act, which gives that
Court jurisdiction over any claim by a seaman of
any ship for wages (e). It has been held that as

(a) Dt U Vtga v. )'io«»a, 35 B. a 298 ; J)oii v. Ufpmtm,
5 CI. A; F. 1 ; flen. Stean Navig. Co. v. Cui'floM, 11 M. & W. 877 ;
Lopei V. Bunlem, 4 Moo. P. 0. 300; Brituh lAnm Co. v. Dnm-
mrmd, 34 B. E. 595 ; Buhtr v. Sttintr, 43 B. B. 598 ; Kmi v.
Finch, 45 L. J. Oh. 816; AUiawt Bank of Simla v. Carey, 49
h. J. C. P. 781 ; Re Beiut Koitrilt, 49 L. J. P. & M. 67 ; Tfc
Leon, 6 P. D. 148.

(6) 24 Viot. c. 10.

(c) Tht India (1863), 32 L. J. P. M. & A. 185.

(d) The Mecca (1894), 64 L. J. P. D. & A. 40.

(e) The Nina, 37 L. J. Adm. 17. For proTisions as to relief

RBMEDnn GOVEBNKD BT LKX FOBI. 279

the English Bailiug rules are not binding on foreign
ships on the high seas, a foreign .hip was pre-
clnded in a coUision suit, from impnting to the
British ship with which the collision occurred, a
breaoh of anv of those rules; on the ground that
>t had no right to the benefit of rules by which it
was not, itself, bound («).

(a) I»« 2W/rn-«ii, Swab. 96.

M-

■in

"H

CHAPTER VII.

UOnON I.— BKPUOMAKOT— BEPEAL BY IMPLIOATION-
ACTS IK, OB INVOLVINO, THE NEOATIVB.

An author must be supposed to be consistent
with himself; and, therefore, if in one place he
has expressed Us mind clearly, it ought to be
presumed that he is stiU of the same mind in
another place, unless it clearly appears that he
has changed it (a). In this respect, the work of
the Legislature is treated in the same manner as
that of any other author; and the language of
every enactment must be construed, as far as
possible in accordance with the terms of every
other statute which it does not in express terms
modify or repeal (ft). The law, therefore, will not
allow the revocation or alteration of a statute by
construction when the words may be capable of
proper operation without it (c). But it is impossible
to construe absolute contradictions ; consequently

(o) Puff. L. N. b. 5, 0. 12, s. 9.

(fc) See sup. p. 61. As to Repeal, see inf. p. 727 el .<■?.

(«) Per Bridgman C.J., Lyny. ITyn. Bridg. Hep. by BannUter,

^ y. B. 272 ; and see Felton v. Bouen, [1900] 1 Q. B. 598.

BBPUOHAHT SATINO OLAVSR. 281

if the provisions of a later Act are so inoonsistent
with, or repugnant to, thnse of an earlier Act
that the two cannot sta i i„ether^,) the earlier
stands impliedly repeal ^.i ;,- .i,„ .,,u.: lb). I^„e»
po^teriares priore» er,>...,,a. ,,,.„,,„,,. £/j; ,,^

A difference, ind.f.', L .. )-.en ., , .j exist in
this respect betwe. . ihe .i'.,-.!, ,f a having Clause
or Exception, and a P.ov. .... a statute. When
the proviso appended to 'p eua. :,Ing part is
repugnant to it, it unquuhuouably repeals the
enaotmg part(rf); but it is said by Lord Coke
hat when the enactment and the saving clause
(which reserves something which would be other-
wwe moluded in the words of the enacting part(«))
are repugnant-as where a statute vests a manor
in the King, saving the rights of all persons, or
vests m him the manor of A. saving the rights
of A.-the saving clause is to be rejected, because
otherwise the enactment would have been made

(«) W„t nam V. Fourth OUf Buildim, Soclelf, [1892] 1 Q B
W. See 0-FJaherlf y. McDowell (1857), 6 H. L. Cas. I42'
dictum of Lord St. Leonaris.

(h) Co. Litt. 112 ; Shop. Touohst. 88 ; Grot b. 2 o 16 8 4 ■
v" L""!*'*' ° ^"'' ^*^' Con.iantins v. CWa»«„e (1801), 6

/,?»;„• '"" "■ ■*""""• ^ B- K- «* ; •B'-""'' V. 6. W. R Co
(1885), 9 Q. B. D. 753, per Keld J.

{<•) Livy, b. 9, 0. .34.

W A..a. V. ChtUea WaterKorh,, Fitzg. 195.

(<■) Co. Litt. 47a; Shop. Touohst. 78.

I
St

v,;|

"■'^■xmr.'

282 INTEBPHETATION OF STATUTES.

in vain (a). One authority which he cites for thib
proposition is the case of the reversal of the
Duke of Norfolk's attainder, by an Act of Mary
That Act declared that the earlier statute of
38 Hen. VIII., whicb had attained the Duke, was
no Act, but utterly void, providing, however, that
this reversal should not take from the grantees
of Henry VIII. or Edward VI. any lands of the
Duke which those Kings had granted to them-
and this provision was held inoperative to save
the nghts of the grantees. But this resulted, it
18 said, not because the saving clause was re-
pugnant to the enacting part, but because the
latter m declaring the attainder void, in effect
established also that the lands of the Duke had
never vested in the Crown; that none, conse-
quently, had ever passed to the grantees; and
that there was thus no interest to be saved on
which the clause could operate (6).

The illustrations given by Coke are cases of
conveyance of land; and the rule as regards the
construction of repugnant passages in a convey-
ance by deed has always been that the eariier of
thc-m prevails(c). But it may be questioned

aflirmed 6 Ir. Eq. Bep. 288. i v >

m JraW„,»„„,-,Ca,.,Plowd.565. See Sa^„g, Instim. ,.
Mahn, 23 Maine, 370.

(0 Co.Litt.ll2; Sbep.Touch8t.81; Cotie. y. Merrirk,mrd.

REPUGNAllfT SAVWO CLAU8K. 283

Whether there is any solid ground for this distino-
t on between a saving clause and a proviso in a
statut. The later of two passages i'n a statute
being he expression of the later intention, should
prevail over the earlier; as it unquestionably
would if It were embodied in a separate Act.

It has been held that where a statute merely
e-enaots the provision of an earlier one, it is to be
read as part of the earlier statute, and not of the
re-enacting one, if it is in conflict with another
passed after the first, but before the last Act ; and
therefore does not repeal by implication the inter-
mediate one (a). Where a passage in a schedule
appended to a statute was repugnant to one in the
body of the statute, the latter was held to pre-
vail(«) Where (as often happens) a proviso is
inserted to protect persons who are unreasonably
apprehensive as to the effect of an enactment
where there is reaUy no question of its application

u--/""'''"'" "■ ^^^' (^843), C3 R. K. 455; explained in '
I».«m»,, V. Halhaway (IS"?), 6 Ch. D 544

(a) JlforiW V. Royal BniUl lianh, 1 0. B. N. 8. 87 per
W. es J., cting ,ra«a„ .. «,«,„.„, 3 Drew. 538. See aC
■"■ "■ Dove, 3 B. & Aid. 596.

64o'' *•;• *"'"^'' ^2 A. & E. 227 ; Allen v. Flicker. 10 A. & E.
mper PatteBon J. ; B. v. Bm^ll, 18 L. J. M. C. 106 • Dean
^ Qreen. 8 P. D. 79 ; Cox. E^. (1887). 56 L. J. Q. B. 532 See
CV-rt, V. Oaut. 22 L. J. Ex. 67. A. to Statute-^ Euts L"
-«. of Palen, A^enU v. XoeW, [1894] A.^C. 3^ ', p

284

INTBBPBETATION Of STATUTES.

to their case, the enactment is not to be construed
against the intention of the Legisiatnre so as to
impose a liability upon people who were not so
apprehensive (a).

When the later of two general enactments is
couched in negative terms, it is difficult to avoid
the inference that the earlier one is impliedly
repealed by it. For instance, if a general Act
exempts from licensing regulations the sale of a
certain kind of beer, and a subsequent one ena(its
that " no beer " shall be sold without c, license,
it would obviously be impossible to save the former
from the repeal implied in the latter (6). Tlie
Highway Act, 1835, which enacted that '-no
action " for anything done under it should be
begun after ^ three months from the cause of
action, was so clearly inconsistent, as regards
actions against justices, with the 24 Geo. II.
which limited the time to six months, that it
necessarily repealed the latter (c).

But even when the later statute is in the

(a) Weat Derbi/ Ouardiam v. Metrnpolitm Life Amiranfr,
11897] A. C. 647.

{b) Read v. Storey, 30 L. J. M. C. 110; remedied by 24 i 25
Viot. 0. 21, B. 3, now repealed by 10 Edw. VII. o. S, s i)G ami
Sohed. 6.

(••) e & 6 Will. IV. 0. 00, s. 109 ; (repealed by 50 .4 .57

Viot. c. 61), B. 2; 24 Geo. 11. c. 44, s. 8; Rix v IM

12 A. * E. 470.

KEPEAL BY IMPLICATION. 285

affirmative, it is often found to involve that
negative which makes it fatal to the earlier enact-
ment (a). The requirements of 3 & 4 Will. IV.
c. 74, s. 40, which empowered a married woman
to dispose by deed of land which she held in fee
provided she did so with the concurrence of her
husband and by deed acknowledged, were impliedly
repealed by the Married Women's Property Act,
1882, which enables her in general terms to dis-
pose of all real property as if she were a feine
sole {/>). If an Act requires that a juror shall have
£20 a year, and a new one enacts that he shall
have 20 marks, the latter necessarily iiaplies, on
pain of being itself inoperative, that the eailier
qualification shall not be necessary, and thus
repeals the first Act (<•). An Act empowering a
railway company to erect a station on any
scheduled lands within the limits of deviation
would override the provisions of the earlier
Metropolis Management Amendment Act, 1862,
s. 75, which forbade the ai-eotion of buildings
beyond the general line of buildings in a street («'),

{-.) Bac. Ab. Stat. (D) ; Foster', rW, 5 Kep, .59. See Lorf
Blackburn's judgment, G„r„,« v. Jirr,dl,:,. W L. J Ex 186
See, however, inf. p. 329 et wq.

(h) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75; and see 7 Edw VII c 18 s 3 • Be
lJ"immnnd{lH91}.mTj..\.ab.2(>H. ' ' '

(■■) ,Jenk. 2nd Cent. Case, 73 ; 1 Bl. Comni. 89

W 25 & 26 Vict. e. 102, s. 75 ; s. 75 repealed by 57 & 68
\.ct. c. eoxiii, B. 3ir,. Sched. 4; Cily ^ South Lon.ion Ii,j. v.

286

INTEBFBETATtON OF STATUTES.

but this rule is not necessarily of universal applica-
tion (a). The 63 Geo. III. o. 127, giving power
to two justices to enforce the pajrment of a church
rate when its validity was undispnted and the sum
due was under ten pounds (provided that where
the validity was disputed, the justices should for-
bear from adjudicating), entirely takes away the
jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts over com-
plaints for non-payment of church rates where the
amount claimed does not exceed JEIO in spite of
the proviso that nothing in the Act should alter or
affect the jurisdiction of the Ecclesiastical Courts
to decide oases touching the validity of the rate {/>).
Sec. 16, 5 & 6 Vict. o. 22 (c), which authorised
the Secretary of State to remove to Bethlehem
Hospital any prisoner confined in the Queen's
prison who was of unsound mind, was held, as
regards such prisoners, to repeal impliedly the
earlier enactment of 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 102,
which provided that a prisoner for debt of unsound
mind should be discharged after certain inquiries

London C. C, [189iJ 2 Q. B. 513 ; London 0. C. v. London Sdool
m., [1892] 2 Q. B, 606; VckjiM V. D. C. v. Crowbormi)!,
Water Co., [18991 2 Q. B. 664.

(0) London County Council v. Wandimorlh d Putney Om Co.
(i900), 82 L. T. 562.

(1) Bichard, V. Dyke (1842), 3 Q. B. 256, Micitm v.
Bodenham, 43 R. B, 384.

(c) Bapealed by S. L. E. (No. 2), 1888.

RBPBAL BT IMPL1CATI0\. 287

and formaUtieg (a). Where an Act of Charles II
enabled two justices of the peace, " whereof one to
be of the quorum," to remove any person likely
to be chargeable to the parish in which he comes
to inhabit ; and another, after reciting this pro-
vision, repealed it, and enacted that no person
should be removable until he became chargeable,
m which case " two justices of the peace " were
empowered to remove him ; it was held that the
later Act dispensed with the quaMcation of being
of the quorum (*).

The provision of 43 Eliz. which gave an appeal
without any limits as to time against overseers'
accounts, was impliedly repealed by a subsequent
Act, which gave power to appeal to the next
Quarter Sessions (c).

The repealed Nuisances Removal and Diseases
Prevention Act, 1848, in providing that the costs
of obtaining and executing an order of justices
under the Act against an owner of premises should
be recoverable in the, County Court, impliedly re-
pealed, as regards such cases, the enactment of
the County Courts Act, that those Courts should

(a) Oore v. Grey, 32 L. J. 0. P. 106.

m 13 & H Car. II. c. 12, and 35 Geo. III. o. 101 ; if v
U<>n,jia«, 4 B. & 8. 249, disaautiente Oookburn C.J.

(■') 43 Eliz. 0. 2, 8. 6 (repealed in part by 3] A 32 Viot.c 122
s.^b), and 17 Geo. II. c. 38, s. 4; iJ. v. Worce,lerMre. 17 B. b!

^88 INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

not take oognisanoe of cases where title to real
property was in question ; for it would have been
inoperative if the Court could not decide the
question of ownership (a), and this ruling still
represents the law (A). So, where justices were
empowered to punish summarily acts of malicious
damage to property, except when done " under a
fair and reasonable supposition" of a right, it
was held that this proviso impliedly repealed,
pro tanto, the general principle which ousts the
jurisdiction of justices when a borul Jlde claim of
right is asserted ; and that the justices were not
bound to abstain from adjudicating until satisfied
that the act had been done under a fair and
reasonable supposition of right (c). So, where
one Act empowered justices to enforce the pay-
ment of costs given by the Queen's Bench on
appeal against convictions, except where the party
liable was under recognisances to pay such costs ;
and a later one authorised the Quarter Sessions to
give costs in " any appeal," to be recovered in the
manner provided by the first Act ; it was held that
the exception in that Act was impliedly repealed,

(a) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 123, B. 3 (repealed by 29 & 30 Vict. c. 00,
a. 69), and 9 & 10 Vict. c. 95, s. 58 (repealed by 51 k 6i Vict,
c. 43, 8. 188) ; B. v. Bmdn (1852), 22 h. J. Q. B. 299.

(h) Fnrdkam v. Akerf (1864), 33 L. J. Q. B. 67.

(r) White V. Feast (1872), L. K. 7 Q. B. 353 ; JJra.fa v
Uamlj/n (1899), 79L. T. 734.

REPBAL BY IMPUOATION. jg,

and that a distress warrant had been nmr. i
-ued against the party liable tho„g, '17 :t
onder recognisances (a). An oker made J
the authonty of the Judicature Act W5
enacbng that the costs of aU procteLs S

?on^'^ .?w t'"' ''^ "^ *^« discretion of th"
Court, and that wh«e an action is tried by a jurj
^e costs shaU follow the event unless the' JuJg^
at the tnal. or the Court, otherwise orders, Z
held to repeal so much of the Act of 21 jLc T
c. 16, as deprived a successful plaintiff of costs in
an action of slander when he did not lover Z
much as forty shillings damages(6). ^ TacT
meut that the Custos Eotulorum shil nomi^^ a"
fit person to be Clerk of the Peace guan^^Z^,

authorised the appointment durante l,ene T^t
for a grant under the former would be inconS
Jth one under the latter of the above ActsT)
Where a statute made it actionable to sell a pSted
copy of a work with knowledge that it was S

30 L. J. M. 0 123 "■ ■ '■ ^' ■^'""""' ^- -««<

C B. N. S. 665. **"■ '■• "^'■'/o'-rf, 4

"■"/- '^^.. C„„. [1892^2 g^B 220 ^" *"*

19

!i

if

«'.?a«K .-a .. -«-.

390

INTEBPBETATION Or BTATUTES.

and a sabsequent Act contained a similar proTision
but Mrithout any mention of guilty knowledge, it
was held that the earlier Aot was so far abrogated
that an action was maintainable for a sale made
■L\ ignorance of the piracy (a). Where one Aot
imposed a penalty of 5s. for killing or selling a wild
bird between March and August, unless it was
proved that the bird had been brought from abroad
before March ; and a later one, after reciting that
this enactment was insufficient for the protection
of wild birds during the breeding season, imposed
a penalty of 208. for killing or " possessing " a wild
bird between February and July, it was held
that the later Act impliedly repealed the proviso
of the earlier Aot, which admitted the excuse that
the bird had been imported (6). Where an Act
required that a consent should be given in writing
attested by two witnesses, and a subsfiquent Act
made the consent valid if in writing, but made
no mention of witnesses, this silence was held

(o) Weit V. Frandt, 5 B. & Aid. 737 ; Gambarl v. Sumner, 29
L. J. Ex. 98. For disqtiisition on Copyright Aot, 1911, see
Clerk and Lindsell on Torts, Chap. XXI. See Mem Bea, sap.
p. 177.

(6) 3S & 36 Vict. 0. 78, and 39 &. 40 Vict. c. 29 (repealed b;
43 & 44 Vict. o. 35, 8. 7) ; Whitehead v. Smither; 2 C. P. D.653.
See 43 & 44 Vict. c. 35; Harris v. Lucat, [1919] 2 K. B. 291;
and 44 & 45 Vict. o. 51 ; Taylor v. Bogen, 50 L. J. M. C. 132.
For later protective legislation, see 57 & 58 Vict. c. 24;
4 Edw. VII. c. 4 ; 8 Edw. VII. c. 11, s. 2.

*■{;

REPEAL BT mPLICATION. 291

au^Tfy, •'y/^'Plioation the provision which re-
quired them (a). 1 Eliz. c. 1, which empowered
^e Qaeen to authorise ecclesiastical pe«or to

waT^l'r "^"'."r" *° Bupposed'offendU
was imphedly repealed by 16 Car. L, which took

away the oaths (*). Where ax. Act exempted from

land fishenes, and a later one exempted seamen em-
b«ked for those fisheries whose names were regi
tered and who gave security, it was held that the
earher was repealed pro tanto by the later Act (c).

r«™.^'?°°' °°'°Pl^<'»«on of legislation involving a
«peal by xmphoahon is afforded by the Judicature

and 1888. Under the Judicature Act, 1873, s 45
which came mto operation in 1875, it was enactei

atLf r " t°'''°" °' " ^^^"•'"''^ Court on
appeal from a County Court there should be no

S' T:1^^°"* *he leave of the Divisional
Court. But the County Courts Act, 1875, which

hat there should be an appeal without leave from
the Divisional Court, if the latter "altered" the

525 , Derb,, v. Bury ammi„i„«er>. inf. p 310
(i) Jiirek v. Lake, 1 Mod. 185.
{c, %,. nanUktn, 9 East, 44.

an

iNTiBPBrrATioir or STATom.

judgment of the County Court in an Admiralty
cause, and consequently /wo tanto repealed s. 46 of
the Judicature Act. The County Courts Act,
1888, repealed the provision of the CoTinty Courts
Act, 1876, referred to, but provided that the
.epeal should not revive any enactment not iu
force when it was passed. This express repeal
consequently did not revive s. 46, Judicature Act,
1873, so far as it was impliedly repealed by the
County Courts Act, 1876(a).

Where a statute contemplates in express terms
that Its enactments wiU repeal earUer Acts by
their inconsistency with them, the chief argument
or objection against repeal by implication is re-
moved, and the earlier Acts may be more readily
treated as repealed. Thus, after a local Act had
directed the trustees of a turnpike to keep their
accounts and proceedings in books to which "all
persons" should have access, the Turnpike Eoads
Act, 1822, 3 Geo. IV. c. 126, which recited the
great importance of one uniform system being
adhered to in the laws regulating turnpikes, and
enacted that former laws should continue in force
except as they were thereby varied or repealed!
directed that the trustees should keep their ac-
counts m a book to be open to the inspection of

(o) 36 & 37 Vict. c. 66 ; 38 & 39 Viot. o. 50. 8. 10 ; 51 & 52 Vict.

WJPBAL BT mPMOATIOK. jjj

n„ir 7- trostees; it was held that the

repoaled 1^ a,, I,t,r. Th„, ,j,„ , , ^ "

Act «ave the^Ze ^^elTo' lo J t S; ^The

tL r . ,''°^" ^*'^ »^'^ ''°'Jd be to defeat
the object of the Legislature (*). But if one L!

■"uer one, if the oo-existence of the

m ^' "• *»■'*'"•<'*. 5 B. & Ad. 978

(6) i)o«. V. Metropolitan Board, 31 L J C P 95.1 a ^

V. ^.»/ Water^i, (1827), 7 i & C ,14 p t"^ ^''"'

2B.4Ad 818- B„, n,. ' ^- * <^- 3"; JB. v. Jlf.d&.«t.

0- «'• fi. Co., 51 L. J. Q B 5^9 sf ! i^^"'- -^^"^ ^•
[1893] 1 Q B 375 ' " ^"•««''<*'"» iocoi Board,

If

If I

MKaOCOfY KESOWriON TiST CHAUT

(ANSI ond ISO TEST CHART No. 2)

^ APPLIED IM/IGE Ine

^R '653 East Main Street

Rochesler. Nen Vorii U609 USA
(716) *82 - 0300- Phone
(?16) 3BB - 5989 - Foi

294

INTEBPRETATIOV OF STATUTES.

right which it gave would be productive of iucon-
venience ; for the just inference from such a result
would be that the Legislature intended to take the
earlier right away (a). Thus, the Country Bankers
Act, 1826 (7 Geo. TV. c. 46), which, besides limit-
ing and varying the common law liabilities of
members of banking companies, provided that
suits against such companies should and lawfully
might be instituted against the public officer, was
held to take away by implication the common law
right of suing the individual members (6), for from
the nature of the case, this must have been what
the Legislature intended (c).

In other circumstances, also, the inconvenience
or incongruity of keeping two enactments in force
has justified the conclusion that one impliedly
repealed the other, for the Legislature is presumed
not to intend such consequences. Thus the re-
pealed 9 Geo. IV. c. 61, which prohibited keeping
open public-houses during the hours of afternoon
divine service, was held repealed by impUcation
pro tanto by 18 & 19 Vict. c. 118, which prohibited
(o) See inf. Chap. VIII., See. I.

(6) Steu«ird v. Grmres, 12 L. J. Ex. 109 ; Chapman v. Milmm.
19 L. J. Ex. 228 ; Dadioit v. Farmer, 20 L. J. Ex. 177
0- Flaherty v. McDoiceU, 6 H. L. Cas. 142. See also Green v. E.,
1 App. Cas. 513; Eole, v. Ro>eu,ell and Hardy v. Ben 5
T. E. 538.

(e) Per Lord Cranworth, Q-Flaherty v. McDowell, 6 H. L. Cas.
157. See Coaley v. Byas, 5 Oh. D. 944.

REPEAL DY IMPt.lCATION. 395

the sale between three and five o'clock p.m., tlie
usual hours of afternoon divine service. If both
Acts had co-existed, it would have been in the
power of the clergyman of every parish to close
the pubhc-houses for four hours instead of two
by beginning the afternoon service at one or at
five p.m., an intention too singular to be lightly
attnbnted to the Legislature («). So, the charges
contained in the Distress for Bent Rules 1888
(made under s. 8, Law of Distress Amendment
Act, 1888, 51 & 52 Vict. c. 21), have superseded
the charges in the schedule to the Distress (Costs)
Act, 1817, 57 Geo. III. e. 93(/,).

An intention to repeal an Act may be gathered
from Its repugnancy to the general course of
subsequent legislation. Thus 7 Geo. I. c 21
which prohibited bottomry loans by Englishmen to
foreigners on foreign ships engaged in the Indian
trade, was held to have been sil-mtly repealed by
the subsequent enactments which put an end to
the monopoly of the East India Company, and

L. J. M. C. 217, S. 0. See Harri. v. Jenns. 30 L. J. M C 183 •
R.Y. Senior, h. & C. 401; S. v. Bucks, 2 E. &B 447- ij v

hT' Z^\'- ^- °- '^^' ^- ^- ^' ^'^^P'- °t a similar
tad in Manchester {Sfayor) y. Lyom, 22 Gh. D. 287, and if™
W.ndsor Gelation v. Taylor. [1899] A. C. 41. The present
Btatory Clo8ing Hours are those prescribed by 10 Edw VII
1 Geo. V. 0. 24, Sohed. 6. .- • .

(4) Walker v. Better (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 623.

; f

296

INTKRl-BETATION OF STAl'UTKS.

SECTION U.-CONSISTENT APPIBMATIVE ACTS.

But repeal by implication is not favoured (M
A sufBcient Act ought not to be held to be repealed
by imphcation without some strong reason Mi
IS a reasonable presumption that the Leg slature
^d not intend to keep really contradictory eS
ments on the statute-book, or, on the other hand
to effect so important a measure as the repeal o
a law without expressing an intention to do so
Such an interpretation, therefore, is not to be
adopted, unless it be inevitable. Any reasonabl
construction which offers an escape' fromit

iXtir^ *° '' '^ ~-- ^*^ *^e '«:

It is sometimes found that the conflict of two
s atutes IS apparent only, as their objects are
different, and the language of each is therefore

yi,^. t^" ^^"^ ^^- ^^ ^- ^- ^- ^- * A- 193- See also H v

S: "c'V S- s'-rsee'T ^^; r ''■' ''-""^ ^

r™,fe fi., 5 Ch. D. 545 ; fl. y. M. ij,„., gj q. b. d. 569 . ^ ,
re.< ij«/m3, [1891J j q, g 732. '

(6) Forter". Cmc, H Bep. 63a

W P.r Lord Bramwell, G. W. By. y,S.indon <t CheltenLa ,B,.,
9 App. Cas., at p. 809.

COXSISTEKT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS 297

Imito lie line f„,^,,„.,"' °- ^>- »l"ol>

the one case, tithe was real propertv • fn fi! .i.
a chattel (6) property , m the other,

and wI^L^nt rSVe "r"' '*'^^'"

had an ir,f<.> * T *^® judo^ment debtor

'" "'*''^^*' ''^^ I'^W to be limited to the

W ^l» (Dean of) v. (7„A, 15 L. J. Ex 341

'• »», 9 M. & w 111 M^^' ' -^^ "^^ ^- 3*9 ; ««■«<

^-<^ V. ff.*.r4 H '. ;T;f ^-r^'^'^ '' "-■ '• ^^- «2^

^KnigHt, 17 L. ;. Ex 168 l] ^"T ''^ '■ ^'"'"' '"P-:
("84), 10 App. C», 14 ' '"' """^ ''■«"»'■-"» V. Gram

MP'

298

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

property of debtors who had the power of charging

their property, that is, to lay rectories, advowsons

and tithes, and so did not conflict with or repeal

by imphcation 13 Eliz. c. 10, which makes void

aU chargings of ecclesiastical property in ecclesi-

asticaJ hands («). The Act which provides oTe

course of proceeding for the habitual neglect to

send a child to school, does not conflict with

another which provides a different mode of pro-

ceedmg for a neglect which was not habitual but

occasional only, and both therefore can stand (A).

of ?nn • '^\^- '('>'^^'°^ imposed a peni;
of ^100, recoverable by the common informer by
action, on any parish officer who, for his own
profit, supplied goods for the use of a workhouse
or for the support of the poor, was held unaffected
by 8. 77 4 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76, which inflicted a
nne ot i5, recoverable summarily, half for the
informer and half for the poor rates, on any such
officer who supplied goods for his profit to an
mdmduaJ pauper (d). It had been decided before
the passing of the later Act (which, indeed, was

(o) Ba«kin. V. Oaihercoh ;1S54), U L. J. Ch. 338 ; and see
Aihbarlm (Ld.) v. Noclon, [1915] 1 Oh. 274, C. A.

(6) 39 & 40 Vict. 0. 79, s. U (amended by 7 Edw VII c 43
s. 14 (1)); Murphy, Be (1877), 46 L. J. M. C. 193. See also'
Atlaater, Exp., 46 L. J. Bank. 41.

(c) Section repealed 31 & 32 Vict. o. 122, a. 44.

(d) Sobia«m V. Emerton, 4 H. & C. 352. See, however, sup.
p. 98. '^

C0NSI8TKNT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

299

passed in oonsequence of that decision), that the
eirlier enactment applied only to a supply for
the poor generally, but not to the supply of an
individual pauper (a). The prohibition contained
in the Trade Union Act, 1871, against a Court
entertaining any legal proceedings for the purpose
of enforcing an agreement for the application of
the funds of a trade union to provide benefits for
members, has been held not to be impliedly
repealed by the provision of the Trade Union Act
Amendment Act, 1876, that a member may
nominate any person to receive any moneys due
to such member from his trade union on his
decease, and that the trade union shall pay such
sum to the nominee ; the object of the later enact-
ment being, not to depart from the policy of the
earlier one, but to enable members to give away
small sums due to them, without incurring the
trouble of making a Will, or the expense of
probate (4).

The 56 Geo. III. c. 60 (relating to the sale of
farm stock in execution), in providing that no
assignee in bankruptcy or under a bill of sale, and
no purchaser of farm stock, should be entitled to
dispose of any stock intended for use on the land

(o) Proctor v. Manwaring, 3 B. & Aid. 145.

(*) 34 & 35 Viot. c. 31, s. 4, and 39 & 40 Viot. o. 22, s. 10
(extended by 46 & 47 Viot. c. 47, ss. 2, 3, etc.) ; Crocker v
ftijii, [1892] 1 Q. B. 702; 67 L. J. Q. B. 466.

I

w Sii

n-. iSBwniiii

300

rSTKBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

n any other manner than that by which the
tenant ought to have disposed of it, was limito.l in
construction to the purchases from teuaats- but
was regarded as not affecting 2 & 3 W A Mc 5
which imposes on the landlord the obligation of
selhng distrained goods at the best price, aud
therefore as not justifying him in selling under
the conditions of the 66 Geo. III. o. 30 s 1 (,)
The later Act showed no intention to modify the
law of distress.

So, an Act (h) which imposed, for police purposes
a penalty for retailing excisable liquors without a
magistrate's license, would not be affected by au
excise Act of later date, which, after imposing a
duty on persons licensed by magistrates, provided
that nothmg contained therein should prohibit a
person duly Ucensed to retaU beer, from carrying
on his business in a booth or tent, at a fair or
race(c). 1 Will. IV. c. 64, which imposed on
beer retailers licensed by the Excise a penalty
of from ^10 to £20 on conviction before justices,
for selling beer made otherwise than of malt and

(a) Bidgway v. Stafford (1851), 20 L. J. Ex. 226; Wilmt v
fi<«e, 23 L. J. Q. B. 281; Hav,ki«. v. Walrond. 1 C. P. D.

(i) 48 Geo. III. o. 143, b. 5, repealed by S. L. E.. 1872 (No. 2J
(») B. V. flbMon (1821), i B. & Aid. 519 ; JJ. v. 7)«r„a, 3 T.E.

560. See Buoih v. WrighUon, 34 L. J. M. C. 43 ; .1,4 v. ij«»,

35 L. J. M. 0. 159.

CONStSTRNT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS.

301

hops, or for mixing any drags with it, or for
diluting it, was held not to affeot 56 Geo. III.
c. 58, which punished with a penalty of ^200
any retailer of beer who had in his possession, or
pat into his beer, any colouring matter or prepara-
tion in lieu of malt and hops ; partly berause the
objects of the two enactments were not identical,
tiie later one having solely a sanitary object in
view, and the protection of the consumer ; while
the earlier was aimed as much at the repression
of frauds on the revenue (a). It is to be added,
also, that 56 Geo. III. c. 58, was expressly kept
in force by 1 Will. IV. o. 51 (6), passed a week
before 1 Will. IV. o. 64.

Where a general intention is expressed, and also
a particular intention which is incompatible with
the general one, the particular intention is con-
sidered an exception to the general one(c). Even
when the later, or later part of the enactment is
in the negative, it is sometimes reconcilable with
the earlier one by so treating it. If, for instance,
an Act in one section authorised a corporation
to sell a particular piece of land, and in another

(o) A.-G. V. Lockimod (1842), 9 M. & W. 378. See Palmer v.
natcher, 3 Q. B. D. 346.

m Repealed, except 8b. 22-24, by 43 & 44 Vict. c. 20, s. 49.

(c) Per i est O.J., Churchill v. Create, 5 Bing. 180. See also
ex. gr. Piaington v. Cooke, 17 L. J. Ex. HI ; Taylor v. Oldham
i Ch. D. 395.

SOS

INTEBPRETATION OF BTATUTES.

prohibited it from selling "any land," tlio first
section would be treated not as repealed by tho
sweeping terms of the other, but as bein' an
excepMon to it(«). In this manner two Act,
passed in 1833 were construed as reconcilable

Sec 42, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27. which provided
that no action for rent, or for interest on luouev
charged on land, should be brought after C years
and the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 42, passed three Lki
later, which provided that no action for reut
reserved by lease under seal, or for money secured
by bond or other specialty, should be brought
after 20 years (now by s. 8, Real Property Limita-
tion Act, 1874, 12 J aars), were construed as recon-
cilable, by holding that the later enactment was
an exception out of the form-r. And the effect of
the conjoined enactments (which do not repeal
the statute of James (A) so 'ar as relates to simple
contract debts charged on land, but stand with it)
is, that no aation to enforce a simple contract
debt, whether charged on land or not, shall be
brought after 6 years, unless interest has been
paid or an acknowledgment given; and as to any
specialty debt, whether charged on land or not, no
action shaU be brought after 12 years, either on a
covenant or for a remedy against land, unless

(fl) Per BomiUy M.B., Be Winlon v. Brecon. 38 L. 3. Oh.
bUO.

(6) The Limitation Act, 1623 (21 Jao. I. o. 16).

CONBMl-'NT ArriRMATIVF. ACTB.

:!08

interest lias be i. paid or aa ackuowledgmeut
given (a).

It may be observed, also, that two statutes
expressed iu negative terms may be aflSrmative
irUer se, and not contradictory, though negative as
regards a third at which they are avowedly aimed.
They may make two holes in the earlier Act,
which can stand side by side without merging
into one (6) For instance, 12 Anne, st. 2, o. IC (c),
having made void all loans at more than 6 per
cent, interest, the 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 98, enacted
that " no " bill or note payable at three months
or less should be void for usury ; and the 2 & 3
Vict. 0. 87 (rf), that "no " bill or note payable at
12 months or less should be void on that ground,
but with the additional provision that the Act was
not to apply to loans on real security ; and it was

(a) Hunier v. NodtM; 19 L. J. Oh. 177 (but see SittUm v.
SMm, 22 Ch. D. 511, per Cotton L.J., at p. 618); Bane, v.
mmlM, [1899] 1 Q. B. 888 ; Pagit v. Fohy, 42 B. B. 698 ; Sim, v.
nmai, 12 A. & B. 636 ; flym/re, ;■ Oery, 7 0. B. 567. See also
FemMt v. FUni, 62 L. J. Ch. 479; Ki'Uaad v. PealfUU 72
L. J. K. B. 35t . SmUh. Be. [1893] 2 Ch. 1 ; Deere, Be, 44 L. J.
Bank. 120; Bicheru v. Wiggene, 32 L. J. M. 0. 144. Bent is a
speoWty debt within the 32 & 33 Viot. o. 46, in the administra-
tion of assets, Talbot v. Shrewsbury, 42 L. J. Ch. 877; Be
Butingi, 47 L. J. Oh. 137.

(i) Per Maule J., Clack v. Sainthury, 11 C. B. C95.

(c) Repealed by S. L. B., 1867.

{<!) Id. (No. 2), 1874.

8M

INTERPRETATION OF 8TATUTR8.

held that the last-mentioned Act did not ropeiU
3 & 4 Will. IV. The negitive words, in whicli
both were expressed, had reference to the Act of
Anno ; but inter se, they were affirmative statutes,
and the proviso of the later one, therefore, did not
affect the short loans dealt with by the Act of
WiU. IV. (a).

Farther, it is laid down generally, that wlien
the later enactment is worded in affirmative terms
only, without any negative expressed or implied,
it does not repeal the earlier law (6). Thus, an
Act which authorised the Quarter Sessions to try
a certain oflfenoe, would involve no inconsistency
with an earlier one which enacted that the offence
should be tried by the Queen's Bench or the
Assizes, and would therefore not repeal it by
implication (c). The statute which made it a
misdemeanour to carnally know a girl above twelve
and under thirteen, with or without her consent,
did not prevent a conviction for rape, under an
earlier enactment, upon a girl between those
ages (d). Sec. 4, 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 34 (e), which

(o) Clack V. Saitubury, Bup. p. 303 ; Nitm v. Phillipt, 21 LJ.
Ex. 88 ; Exp. Wairinglon, 22 L. J. Bank. S3.

(i) Co. Litt. 115a; Anon., Lofft, 465.

(o) Mttir V. Hore (1877), 47 L. J. M. 0. 17.

{d) 24 & 25 Vict. o. 100, a. 48, and 38 & 39 Vict. c. 94, s. 4
(repealed, 48 Ic 49 Viot. o. 69, b. 19) ; B. v. BaUliffe, 10 Q. B. D. 74.

(«) Still on the Statute Book.

CONBWTBNT AFriRMATrVK ACT*.

309

!!'

provided that when a Quaker refused to pay
tithe or church rates, it ehould be lawful for
two justioeB to order and enforce payment if the
sum due was under .£10, was held not to repeal
27 Hen. VIII. c. 20(</), which gave jurisdiction to
the Eoolesiastioal Courts in such matters (A). Sec.
11, Lunacy Regulation Act, 1862 (repealed, 63 & 64
Viet. 0. 6, B. 342), which enabled thj Lord Chan-
cellor to make an order for the payment of the
expenses incidental to the presentation of a petition
for an inquiry as to the sanity of an alleged lunatic,
and to order that such expenses be paid by the
parties who either present or opposf the petition,
or out of the estate of the allege^ lunatic, did
not take away the right of a peraon to sue a
lunatic, so found by inquisition, and his committee,
for the recovery of expenses so incurred, without
having obtained any order (c). So, an Act which im-
poses a liability on certain persons to repair a road,

(o) Repealed (with saving), S. L. B., 1887.

(d) B. V. Sanehee, 1 Lord Baym. 323. Many of the olergy, in
the 18th century, persisted, in ooniequence, in suing Quakers
in the Eoolesiastioal Courts for suoh trivial sulns as it. or 5». in
order to inflict heavy coats and imprisonment. Walpole tried
to alter the law, but the Church cried out that it would be
persecution to compel the clergy to recover before magistrates
a due of divine origin ; liooky, Hist. Eng., in 18th Cent, vol i
p. 260.

(c) See s. 109 Lunacy Aot, 1890, and Brockuell v. Sullock
(1889), 22 Q. B. D. 567 ; a decision under the repealed Aot.

i.s. 20

806

INTERPRETATION OF BTATTJTE8.

would not be oonstrued as impliedly exonerating
the parish from its common law duty to do so (a).
A by-law which authorised the election of " any
person " as Chamberiain of the City of London was
not deemed inconsistent with an earlier one which
required of the candidates a certain qualification,
but was limited to eligible persons (*). A local
Act, in directing that the chimneys of buildings
should be built of such materials as the Corpora-
tion approved, did not affect the pru.isions of
the earlier general Act (3 & 4 Vict. c. 85, s. 6), (c)
which required that chimneys should be built of
stone or brick (d). A by-law made under a. 74,
Elementary Education Act, 1870, requiring children
to attend school as long as it was open (which was
at least 30 hours in the week), did not repeal
the provision in the Workshop Eegulation Act,
1867, which requires that children under thirteen
employed in a workshop shall be sent to school
for at least 10 hours weekly («). An Act which

(o) B. V. St. George'e, Hanover Sjuare, 13 R B 792 ■ B v
Southampton, 21 L. J. M. C. 201; Oib.on v. Pre^, SOUj'
Q. B. 131.

(i) Tobacco Pipe Makers v. Woodroffe (1826), 7 B. & C. 838;
H. V. Saddlen' Co. (1863), 32 L. J. Q. B. 337.

(c) Bepealed as regards Metropolis by 7 & 8 Viot. c. 84, 8. 1,
which is itself repealed by 18 & 19 Vict. o. 122, s. 109.

(d) Bill V. HaU (1876), 45 L. J. M. C. 153. '

(c) 30 & 31 Vict. c. 146, 8. 14 (repealed by 41 & 42 Vict. c. IC,
8. 107 ; Buri) v. Cherryholm, 1 Ex. D. 457.

CONStSTBNT AFFtRHATlVE ACTS.

307

provided that if a person suffered bodily injury
from the neglect of a mill-owner to fence dangerous
machinery, after notice to do so from a factory
inspector, the mill-owner should be liable to a
penalty, recoverable by the inspector, and applic-
able to the party injured or otherwise, as the
Home Secretary should determine, would not
affect the common law right of the injured party
to sue for damages for the injury (a). A bond
by a collector, with one surety, good under the
ordinary law, would not be deemed invalid because
the Act which required it enacted that the col-
lector should give good security by a joint and
several bond with two sureties at least (b).

The repealed 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142, which autho-
rised a judge of the Superior Court in which an
action is brought, to send the case for trial to a
Coonty Court, was construed as not impliedly
repealing the earlier enactment of 11 Geo. IV. o. 70,
which authorised any judge of the Superior Courts
to transact the chamber business of the other
Courts as well as his own ; but the later Act was
read with the earlier, and the expression "judge of

$

hi

(a) 7 & 8 Viot. 0. IS (repealed ; for the present law on the
subject, see ss. 10 and 136, Factory and Workshop Act, 1901) ;
Casmett y. Worth, 25 L. J. Q. B. 121. See Ambergate By. Co. v.
Xidland By. Co., 23 L. J. Q. B. 17.

(i) PeppiH V. Cooper (1819), 2 B. & Aid. 431. See Amten v.
Hincard, 1 Taunt. 28, 327.

308

INTBBPBETATION OF 8TATDTB8.

the Court in which the action was brought," was
thus construed as equivalent to any judge of
any of the Superior Courts of law (a). Sec. 52,
65 Geo. III. c. 184(A), which directed that all
affidavits required, by existing or future Acts for
the verification of accounts should, unless when
otherwise expressly provided, be made before the
Commissioners of Stamps, was held unaffected by
9 Geo. IV. 0. 23, s. 7, which empowered justices of
the peace t6 administer the oath in similar cases.
Although the later Act did " otherwise provide,"
it; did not make the provision inconsistent with
the earlier Act(c). The ffighway Act, 1835,
6 & 6 Will. IV. c. 50, which enacted that no
action for anything done under it should be begun
until 21 days' notice of action had been given,
did not repeal (as regards the notice of action
to justices) s. 1, 24 Geo. II. c. 44 (rf), which gave
justices the privilege of a month's notice when
sued for anything done in the execution of their
office (e) ; though, as already mentioned, it was
at the same time held to repeal the provision

(o) Omem v. Jone>, 37 L. J. Q. B. 159. For County Court
Euies in remitted cases, see Order XXXIII., Rules 1913-1918.

(b) Repealed by 54 & 55 Viot. o. 38, s. 28, and replaced
by 8. 2i.

(c) B. ¥ Greenland, 36 L. J. M. C. 37.

(d) Repealed. See Public Authorities Protection Act, 1893
(56 & 67 Viot. c. 61).

(e) Six V. Borlon (1840), 12 A. & E. 470. See sup. 2S4.

CONSISTENT AFFIBHATrVE ACTS.

309

of the same Act which limited the time to six
months.

The 28 Hen. VIII. c. 11, which gave the curate
who served during a vacancy an action for his
stipend against the next incumbent, remained un-
affected by 1 cfc 2 Vict. c. 106, which enacted that
on the avoidance of a benefice, the stipend of the
curate during the vacancy, fixed by the bishop,
should be paid by the sequestrator; both Acts
being in the affirmative, and not so inconsistent as
to be incompatible with both standing (a) ; though
the later Act suggested ground for contending
that as a Court of law could not determine what
the salary should be, it was not competent to
assist the curate in recovering any(i). Where
one Bankruptcy Act empowered the Court to
make the bankrupt an allowance, and a later one
enacted that the creditors should determine
whether any and v»h«t allowance should be made
to him, it was held that the former power was still
in force when the creditors did not exercise that
given them by the later Act(c). Sec. 2, 32
Hen. VIII. 0. 9 (d), which prohibited on pain of

(a) DaMm v. Seaman (1842), 9 M. & W. 777.

{!>) Per Parka B., Id. 789.

(c) Elkrton, Exp., 33 L. J. Bank. 32. As to the present law
on this point, see s. 58, Bankruptcy Act, 1914, and Gordon, Exp.,
U h. J. Bank. 97.

('0 Repealed by 60 & 61 Vict. c. 65, s. 11.

' if

.*

m

j ^^^^H:^^^^B ^^^^^^^^H

310

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

forfeiture the sale of any « pretended" rights or
titles to land (which included aU rights of entry
for these were not transferable at common law)
was not impKedly repealed as regards fictitious
nghts of entry by s. 6, 8 & 9 Viot. c. 106, which
enacted that rights of entry might be disposed of
by deed. But it was sofai^ repealed as to cease to
affect good and real rights of entry (a).

Where a power was given by a local Act to
commissioners to make drains through private
lands, after givmg 28 days' public notice, with
power to the persons interested to appeal- and
the subsequently passed Nuisances EemovalAct
for England, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 121, ss. 21 &
22H6). gave the same power to the same com-
missioners, without requiring notice, it was held
that they were at liberty to act under either
statute. The notice was not a right given to the
parties mterested, but a mere restriction; and
there was no more inconsistency in the co-
existence of the two powers than in the co-
existence of the ordinary covenants in a lease to
repair simply, and to repair after a month's
notice (c). Where an Act (13 & 14 Vict. c. 97)

(a) Jenkins v. Jonet, SI L. J. Q. B 438

(6) Bepealed by 38 & 39 Vict. 'o. S5, s. 343, a, reganb

..llfj'f «^^'"'°''^- BePO^l^d as regards London by '
54 & SS Viot. e. 76, s. 142.

Ic) Derbn v. Bury Commiirioner, (1868), 38 L. J. Ex. 100.

CONBISTEyr AFFIBMATIVE ACT8.

811

imposed a duty of 35«. on the transfer of a mort-
gage, and a second (24 & 25 Viot. o. 91, s. 30)
provided that when the transfer was made by
several deeds, only 5s. should be charged on a'l!
but the first, and a third Act (28 & 29 Viot. o. 96,
8. 17) repealed the first by imposing a stamp of
sixpence per £100, it was held that the second
Act was not impliedly repealed by the third (a).

The Thames Conservancy Act, 1857 (20 & 21
Vict. 0. cclvii), which by s. 96 makes the owner of
a vessel navigating the Thames responsible for
damage done to the Conservators' property, by
any of the boatmen " or other persons belonging
to or employed in" the vessel, was held not to
affect the provision of s. 388, Merchant Shipping
Act, 1854 (repealed and re-enacted by s. 633
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), which protected
owners from liability, where the damage was
occasioned by the fault of a oompulsorily employed
pilot, who, therefore, was not included in the words
" other persons " (6). The 33 Geo. III. c. 54 (now
obsolete), which protected members of friendly

Comp., however, suoh oases as Cumberland v. Copdand, sup.
p. 291.

(a) Foley V. Inl. Bev., 37 L. J. Ex. 109. AU these Acts are
repealed by 33 & 34 Viot. o. 99, and Schedule. The existing
duty on transfer of mortgage (except marketable seourities) is
6d. for eaoh £100.

(b) Thamet Cotuenatorg v. Ball (1868), 37 L. J. C. P. 163.

312

INTEBPRBTATIOK OF STATUTES.

societies from poor law removal untU they became
actually chargeable, was not impliedly repeal a by
35 Geo. III. 0. 101, which extended that protection
to all poor persons ; for though the latter seemed
to supersede the former by making it unnecessary
yet It differed from it in declaring that an
unmarried woman pregnant was to be deemed
chargeable, while under the earlier Act, the
pregnant daughter of a member of a friendly
society was not removable (a). Sec. 4, 17 Geo. II
0. 38, which empowered the Quarter Sessions, upon
an appeal against a poor rate, to order costs to be
paid to the successful party, was held unrepealed
by s. 5, 12 & 13 Vict. c. 45, which, in substance
empowered the Quarter Sessions to direct the
unsuccessful party to pay the costs of the suc-
cessful party to the clerk of the peace, who was
to pay them over to the successful party; so that
the order for costs might be made in either
form (b).

The 43 Eliz. o. 6, 21 Jac. c. 16, and 22 & 23
Car. II. c. 9, having provided that a plaintiff in an
action for slander, who recovered less than 40s.
damages, was to be entitled only to as much costs
as the damages amounted to; the 3 & 4 Vict.
c. 24, aftei expressly repealing the first and third

(o) B. V. Idle (1818). 2 B. & Aid. 149.

(6) fl. V. Bunlley, 23 L. J. M. C. 106; Oay v. Mallhe,...*
B&a. 425 ; Co .p. B. v. Bellier, 21 L. J. M. C. 3.

8PECTAL NOT AFFECTED BT OENEHAL ACTS. 313

of those Acts, without mentioning the Bcoond,
enacted that a plaintiff who, in such cases,
recovered less damage than 40«., should not be
entitled to any costs, unless the presiding judge
certified that the slander was malicious ; and it
was held that this later enactment did not
impliedly repeal 21 Jao. c. 16, and that the effect
of the judge's certificate was merely to remit the
plaintiff to the rights which that statute gave
him (a). The 6 Vict. c. 27, which, after reciting
that it would be advantageous to ecclesiastical
benefices if incumbents were empowered to grant
leases with the consent and under the restrictions
mentioned in the Act, gave them power to grant,
with the consent of the patron, leases for 14 years
at the best rent, and with numerous special
covenants by the lessee, was held not to abridge
the power which every parson had at common law,
as modified by 13 Eliz. c. 10, to grant leases for
21 years or three lives, the lease being confirmed
by the patron (b).

SECTION III GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT.

It is but a particular application of the general
presumption against an intention to alter the law

(a) aoM V. Sees, 30 L. J. 0. P. 16 ; STarthaB v. Martin, 39
L- J. Q. B. 85. Sea also Davies v. QriffitU, 8 L. J. Ex. 70 ;
IFrijWup V. Qreenaere, 10 Q. B. 1.

(h) Oreen v. Jenkiiu, 29 L. J. Ch. 505. See other iUuatrations
in B. V. Medway Unim, L. B. 3 Q. B. 383 ; Sorthwich v. St.

it

■M

8U

INTEBFBETATION OF BTATDTM.

beyond the immediate scope of the statute (sup
p. 149), to say that a general Act is to be construed
as not repealing a particular one, that is, one
directed towards a special object or a special 'class
of objects (a). A general later law does not
abrogate an earlier special one by mere implica-
tion (6). Oeneralia specialibua non derogant (n) ; or
in other words, "where general words in a later
Act are capable of reasonable and sensible applica-
tion without extending them to subjects specially
dealt with by earlier legislation . . . that earlier
and special legislation is not to bo held indirectly
repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by
force of such general words, without any indica-
tion of a particular intention to do so " id). In such

P«^«., 32 Q. B. D. 164 ; Mi,f^ J7„.« v. W.^yland &„.•«,, 25
y. a. D. 164; PMock v. Landt Imftownumt do, 37 Ch. D. 661
(o) Per Lord Hatherley, Qanttt v. Bradlej, 3 App Cas 980
(») Per P»ge.Wood V.-C, i™*™ <fc BlachM Bv. v £,„-
houK. 8 K. i J 123; Thorp, v. Adttnu,Ij. B. 6 C. P 12fi- E v
Okaupne^, Id. 384; Kutner v. PHllip., i«r A. L. Smith J.,
[1891] 2 Q. B. 272; AtliioH-under-Lyni, v. Pugh, [1898] 1 Q B
45; Baird v. Tunbridge Welh. 64 L. J. Q. B. 151- Lodge v
Budda;fiM Corp. (Wo. 1) (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B. 668. See S C
(No. 2), 67 L. J. Q. B. 571.

(c) Jenk. 3rd Gent. 4l8t Case.

(d) Se«ttrd V. The Vera Cna.per Lord Selbome C, 10 App.
Cas., at p. 68; Haukint v. Oathercole, per Turner L.J., 6
De M. & G., ;.. g. 31 ; Lyn v. Wyn. Bridg. 122, inf. p. m.per
M. Smith J. ; Thame$ Cotuenaton v. Hall, L. R. 3 C. P. 421, and
per BramweU B., Bodd, v. Sh^herd, 1 Ei. D. 75.

ip'

SPECIAL NOT AFFKCTBD BT OENEBAL ACTS. 316

oases it is presumed to have only general oases in
view, and not particular oases which have been
already otherwise provided for by the special Act,
or, what is the same thing, by a local custom (a).
Having already given its attention to the particular
subject, and provided for it, the Legislature is
reasonably presumed not to intend to alter that
special provision by a subsequent general enact-
ment, unless that intention is manifested in
explicit language (6), or there be something which
shows that the attention of the Legislature had
been turned to the special Act, and that the
general one was intended to embrace the special
cases provided for by the previous one (c) ; or
something in the nature of the general one making
it unlikely that an exception was intended as
regards the special Act. The general statute is
read as sUently excluding from its operation the
oases which have been provided for by the special
one.

Thus, the rules of the Supreme Court afi to

(o) C3o. Litt. H6a; Barberi't Oau, 3 Bap. 13b, note U.;
fc jorji". C<ue, 6 Bep. 19b ; B. v. Pttgh, 1 Doug. 188 ; HuUhitu
V. Player, Bridg. 272 ; Phlt v. Sherifft of London, Plowd. 36.

(b) Per Wood V.-O., Fitzgerald v. Ciampneyj, 2 Jo. & H. 54 ;
«nd ftrr Lord Hobhouse, Barter v. Edger, [1898] A. C. 754.

(d) Per Lord Hatherley, Garnet v. Bradley, 3 App. Gas. 950.
See also per Cur., B. v. Poor Law Com., 6 A. & E. 48 ; and
see The Dragonan (1895), 11 T. L. B. 428, per Bruoe J-, at
p. 428.

:|.-i

m

816

rSTEBPBETATIOV OP BTATCTKB.

oo«t8 do not operate to repeal the proviBions of
•pecial .tatutes giving .peoial cost. L ^^Z

iiiUs of Sale Acts requiring the registraUou oi
agreements by whieh a right to I cCe !
seonnty on personal chattels is conferred, although
clearly ^de enough to include debentures of
jomt stock company, were held not to include such
instruments, as the registration of them had 1
otherwise provided for by the Coiupanies Clate
Consohdation Act. 1846, and the repealed Com

TrimVT^^- '"• '' ^^-^-"^ 'o"'

Act, 1861, which gives jurisdiction to that Court
"over any claim for damage done by any sC''
has been held not to authorise- an actiolL

laie (9 & 10 Vict. c. 93); actions under that
Act bemg m respect of a special class of claims

wwlTif TT' ^^ ''"P°'*'^* consideration,,
wluch the Legislature camiot be supposed to have
iiad m contemplation in using words of so genernJ

S. it sia.- ^- ^- "'• '"«"° <^'»» - ^^'"H [19021

(6) 41 & 42 Viot. 0. 31, 46 & 46 Vict o <<i H t q v . ,„
25 & 26 Viet, o 89 s 43 • ju 9/ j V„ ^""- "■ ^^'

W«s oh'i,; f'•^P~''"" '"'' "' to registration of mort-
gages, chargss, etc., is contained m s 93 nf «,• r,.
(Consolidation) Act. 1908. '^ "'"■ ^^ "' «>« Companies

BPBOMt HOT ArrBOTBD BY ORNEBAI. ACTS. 317

I oharaoter (a), and in no case does it apply for
the benefit of aliens abroad, it being ol.?ar law
thst an Act of the Briti> ■ Parliament is not an
•llooution addressed urAj et orbi{b). Again, where
a local Act, for completing a bridge across the
Thames, exempted the owners of the a^oining
ground, which was to be embanked at their ex-
pense, from all taxes and assessments whatsoever,
it was held that later general Acts imposing taxes
and rates in respect of lands and houses, did not
repeal that exemption (c), but this apparently is
no longer good law(</). After 13 Eliz. o. 10
(snp. p. 313), had declared all leases of ecclesi-
astical property void, other than for 21 years or
three lives, leases of house property in towns were
excepted from its operation by 14 Eliz. c. 11 ;
and when, 4 years later, 18 Eliz. o. 11, after
reciting that a practice had already begun of
granting reversionary leases of Church property,
enacted that " all leases hereafter to be made,"
by ecclesiastics, of Church "lands, tenements

(«) 24 & 25 Viot. 0. 10 ; Seuard v. The Vera Crui (1884), 54
L. J. P. D. & A. 9.

(h) Adam v. Briliik and Foreign Sieanukip Co. (1898), 67
L. J. Q. B. 844.

(«) 5Fi«iaiiu V. Prilchard and Eddington v. Barman (1790),
4 T. B. 2 and 4.

(d) Perehard v. Heyaooil, 53 B. B. 128, and Duncan v. Smltuh
N. E. By. Co., L. B. 2 So. App. 20. See Sion College v. London
Corp. (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 369 ; [1901] 1 K. B. 617, at p. 621.

-I MUl [ i

m

INnRPRlTATION OF BTATDTU.

and hereditomenti." should be void, if the old
leaae wm not expiwd or detennined within

td^'^Vi" *^* °' *•"» "">"• "'"« held
tha this l«t Act did not apply to the property

dealt with by 14 Eli«.(a). So the generalVo-
viMon of the Married Women's Property Act 1882
which gave power to a married woman to di,'
pose by Will of any real or personal property iu
the same manner as if she were & feme .o//ha,
been held not to override the special provisicinof
43 Geo. III. 0. 108 (repealed as to Ireland by 14
& 16 Vict. c. 71), which enacts that he powers
conferred by that Act of making a gift by Will fo,
the propose of erecting a church shall not extend
to the case of a married woman acting without the
cononrrenoe of her husband (A).

Where an Act took away the right of bringing
an action respecting certain disputes which were
referred to the summary abjudication of justices
It was held that the subsequently established
County Courts acquired no jurisdiction to try
such oases, under the general authority to try
" all pleas " (c). " "

IsI'^tT" ^" °' ^"'^«""' ■'»•' '• "V. Bridg. B. by Banmstor,
122. ThiB oaso is not reported in the original edition of Bridg™a„',

^1r!^ ; ?/,'^ °°°'' '^'"' '° '"™ ^-^ «!'•»% -Jivided.
589 '■ ^^' '■ ^ • '**"'■'*■' *"•"■ *'■ 35 C'- D-

r ^'1 vT'/'"^- ^^^*^>' ^^ ^- ''• * ^- ™- ^ »b" B™« v.
i. A X W. a,. (1863). 32 L. J. Q. B. 318.

f

■PaOIAL NOT ArVBOTBD BT flENKBAI. AOTS. 319

The provision of the Jniioature Aot, 1876, that
except where it is otherwiie provided by the Act
or the mies annexed to it, the judgment of the
Conrt shall be obtained by motion, was held not
to affect the (repealed) Coauty Courts Aot of
1666 (re-enacted s. 65, Connty Courts Aot, 1888),
which, after authorising the Superior Courts
to send certain cases to the County Courts for trial,
bad directed that the judgment might be signed in
accordance ' with the result as certified by the
registiar (a). The general provisions of Order LIX, ,
n. 0, 17, as to appeals to the Queen's Bench
Division from inferior Courts, do not repeal
the special provisions of s. 8, Mayor's Court of
London Procedure Act, 1857, as to imposing
the obligation on the party appealing from that
Court in certain oases to give seruiity for costs (A).

The Turnpike lioads Aot, 1822, 3 Qeo. IV.
0. 126, which empowered turnpike trustees to
let the tolls, and provided that all contracts for
letting them should be valid, though not by deed,
" any Acts of Parliament or law to the contrary
thereof notwithstanding," was held unaffected by
8 & 9 Vict. 0. 106, which in the most general

(a) 38 & 39 Viot. o. 77, Order 40, r. 1 ; 19 4 20 Viot. o. 108,
a. 26 ; Scatt v. Freeman, 'A Q. B. D. 177 ; Joiiutm v. Wilum
(1882), 46 L. T. 647.

(6) 20 & 21 Vict. 0. olvii, a. 8 ; Monjan v. Boulet (1893), 63
L. J. Q. B. 84.

I

320

IKTBRPBETATION OP STATUTES,

terms declares that " a lease, required by law to
be in writing, of any tenements and heredita-
ments, shall be void imless made by deed." It
was not to be supposed that the Legislature in-
tended by the later Act to interfere with the
policy of the earlier one, which was emphatically
that a deed should not be required for turnpike
tolls (a), though necessary by the general law of
the land (6). An Act which declared all debtors
to be subject to the bankruptcy laws; would in-
clude debtors who had the privilege of Parliament
from personal arrest (c) ; but any provisions of
those Acts which authorised the arrest of bank-
rupts would be held inapplicable to a person
entitled to the privilege. Unless it expressed a
contrary intention plainly, it would be presumed
that the Legislature did not intend to interfere
with it (d).

Personal Acts and local customs affecting only
certain persons in their rights, privileges, or
property, offer other illustrations of this rule, that
special enactments are unaffected by the general
words of a more general enactment. Thus, the
Act abolishing Fines and Recoveries (3 & i

(o) Shepherd v. Hodsman (1852), 21 L. J. Q. B. 263.
(ft) B. V. Salisbury (1838), 8 A. & E. 716.

(c) For existing law on tiiis point, see 4 & 5 Geo V c 59

s. 12a ■ '

(d) NaccatUe V. Jforris (1870), L. E. i H. L. 661, inf. p 346.

*

8PH0IAL NOT AFFECTED BY GENERAL ACTB. 321

Will. IV. 0. 74), which, in the most comprehensive
terms, authorises " every tenant in tail " to bar
his entail in a certain manner, does not apply to
the tenant in tail of property entailed by special
Act of Parliament, such as the Shrewsbury, Marl-
borough, Wellington, and other special Parlia-
mentary entails (a). And in the same way, 1 & 2
Vict. c. 110, which in general terms enacted that
a judgment of a Superior Court shall operate as a
charge on the lands of the debtor from the time of
its registration in the Common Pleas, was held
not to repeal by implication the Middlesex Eegis-
tration Act, which had enacted that no judgment
should bind lands in Middlesex, but from the time
of its registratiia in the register office for Middle-
sex (6). An Act which authorised " any person "
to sell beer, who obtained a license for the pur-
pose, would not be construed as repealing the
custom or local law of a borough which disqualified
all persons who were not burgesses from selling
beer(c). An Act which required all persons to

(a) Per Wood V.-C, FiitgenM v. Ohampneyi, 2 Jo. & H. 54.
See Ahergmenny v. Brace, L. B. 7 Ex. 145 ; and cofiip. Ouckfield
Board, Be, 19 Beav. 153, inf. p. 325.

(6) 1 & 2 Viot. o. 110, 88. 13 & 19 (partially repealed 63 & C4
Vict. c. 26, 8. 5, Sohed. ); 7 Anne, c. 20, s. 18 ; Weilhrook v.
Blithe, 23 L. J. Q, B. .386. See also Sale's Gate, 6 Q. B. D.
376; EmagU v. lA. Peraawx, 7 App. Cas. 240; Vntt v. Hohmn
(1880), 14 Oh. D. 542.

(c) Leicester v. Biirgeet, 5 B. & Ad. 246 ; 11 Geo. IV. & 1

I.S. .21

828 INTBBPBETATION OF BTATUTES.

serve as jurors of the county, in general terms,
would not be construed as extending to a hundred'
when those who served as jurors in the hundred
were by custom exempted from service in the
county (a). So, the repealed 60 Geo. III. c. 41 (h),
which empowered licensed hawkers to set up in
any trade in the place where they resided, was
held not to give them that privilege in a borough
where, by custom or by-law, strangers were not
allowed to trade (c). "Where a railway company
had authority, under a special Act, to take certain
lands in the metropolis for executing works on
them, it was held that its powers were unaffected
by the Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19
Vict. c. 120), which was passed shortly afterwards,
giving the same powers to a public body (rf). So,
an Act which authorised the lord of a manor and
his heirs to break up the pavement of the streets

Wm. rV. 0. 64, B. 29 ; comp. Huxham v. Wheeler, S3 L. J. M. C.
153 ; Hulehitu v. Player, Bridg. 272.

(o) B. V. Pugh, Doug. 188 ; B. v. St. Jame,'., Weetmiiuler
5 A. & E. 391 ; B. v. Johtuon, 6 CI. & F. 41.

(b) See 51 & 82 Viot. o. S3, s. 8 (this seotioa ia now repealed
by S. L. B., 1908).

(c) Simeon v. Moai, 2 B. & Ad. 543; Llandaff Market Co. v.
Lyndon, 30 L. J. M. 0. 105.

(d) London d Blackmail By. Ob. v. Limehoiue (1856), 26
L. J. Oh. 164 ; comp. Daw v. Metrop. Board, 12 C. B. N. S.
161, sup. p. 293. For Modem Legislation, see 62 & 63 Vict.
c. 14, and 3 Edw. VII. o. 39.

SPECIAL NOT AFFECTED BY aEVEKAL AOTa 323

of a town, for the purpose of laying down water-
pipes to convey water to and through the town,
from his estate, would not be affected by a sub-
sequent Act which vested the same streets and
pavemen^ 1 in a public body, and empowered it to
sue any person who broke them up (a).

In all these oases, the general Act seemed m-
tended to apply to general cases only ; and there
was nothing to rebut that presumption. But if
there be in the Act or in its history something
showing that the attention of the Legislature had
been turned to the earlier special Act, and that it
intended to include the special cases within the
general Act, or something in the nature of either
Act, to render it unlikely thai, djiy exception was
intended in favour of the special Act, the maxim
under consideration ceases to be applicable. The
Prescription Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 71), for
example, in giving an indefeasible right to light
after an enjoyment of twenty years, "notwith-
standing any local custom," plainly abolished the
custom of London which authorised the owner
of an ancient house to build a new one on its
old foundations to any height, though thereby
obscuring the ancient lightsi of his neighbour (6).

(a) Ooldton v. Buck (1812), 15 East, 373.

(6) Salten' Co. v. Jat/, H L. J. Q. B. 173 ; B. v. London
(Mayor), 16 L. J. Q. B. 185 ; Merchant Taylon v. Trmcott (1656)
25 L. J. Ex. 173.

' i

i\

fl

>'ffii

1

mI

{

nil

■f-^"

l ik-^.

834

INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

It has been held that the Dower (a) and In-
closure (J) Acts apply to gavelkind lands, though
this local customary tenure is not expressly men-
tioned in either Act.

By Charters granted by King Henry II. and
subsequent sovereigns, confirmed by Acts of
Parliament, the Corporation of Exete were r '
titled to receive and did receive (inter alia) the
Eevenue Pines imposed within their borough bu,
though not mentioned in the Act, that right was
taken away by the general enactment of s. 33 (l)
Inland Revenue Regulation Act, 1890 (68 & 54
Vict. c. 21), which enacted that " all Fines, Penal-
ties, and Forfeitures incurred under any Act
relatmg to Inland Revenue, which are not other-
wise legaUy appropriated, shaU be applied to the
use of Her Majesty " (c).

Though the sheriffs of the Counties Palatine of
Lancaster and Durham were expressly forbidden
by the 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 71, to arrest on
mesne process issuing from the Courts of West-
mmster for less than ;£50, this enactment was held
repealed by the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 3, which
after abolishing generaUy all arrests for debt, gave
a judge power, under certain circumstances, to
order such an arrest in every action for any sam

(o) Fartn/ v. SonJuim, sup. p. 52.

(b) Xinet v. Leman, 24 L. J. Oh. 547.

{<•) A.-0. V. Exeter Corporatim (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 63fi.

8PBCUL BOMETMBS AFFECTED BY QBKERAL ACTS. 325

for £20 or upwards (a). The Charitable Uses Act,
1736 (9 Geo. H. c. 36(6), was held to extend to
a corporate body which had been empowered by
an earlier Act to take land by devise and without
license, in mortmain (c). So, the Lands Clauses
Consolidation Act, 1845, and other Acts of a like
character, which authorise the compulsory taking
of lands for works of public utility, such as rail-
ways, and give corresponding powers to tenants
in tail or for life, to convey the lands so required,
would apply to tenants in tail under special
Parliamentary entails, such as the Abergavenny
entail(d). The County Courts acquired jurisdiction,
under their general authority to hear " all pleas "
where the debt or damage did not exceed £20, to
enforce the payment of a rate imposed under a
local Act passed before those Courts were estab-
lished, and which had made such rates recoverable

(a) Browri v. McMillan (1846), 7 M. & W. 196; but sea
32 & 33 Viot. 0. 83, now repealed, save as to pending business
of Insolvent Court by 8. h. R. (No. 2), 1893.

(6) Bepealed by the Mortmain Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Viot o. 42),
which see.

(c) Luchraft v. Pridhavi, 46 L. J. Ch. 744. See also
Morrison v. Genl. Steam Navig. Co., 22 L. J. Ex. 233 ; per Jeasel
M.B., Mertey Docks v. Lucas, 51 L. J. Q. B. 116; Gardner v.
Wm/ord, 4 C. B. N. S. 665 ; and note Webster v. Soufhey, 36
Ch. Div. 9, at p. 22.

{d) Be CuchfieU Board (1854), 24 L. J. Ch. 586 ; comp.
Fitigerald v. Oiampaeys, sup. p. 321.

Jm.

1

:i

8» INTEBPaBTATlON OP STATDTES.

only by action in the Superior Courts (a). A local
Act which provided that the prisoners of the
borough to which it apphed, and which had a
separate Quarter Sessions, should be maintained
in the county jail on certain specified terms, was
field to be superseded by 5 & 6 Vict. c. 95, which
enacted that every borough, which had Quarter
Sessions, should, when its prisoners were sent to
the county jail, pay the county the expenses,
mcludmg those of repairs and improvements (A).
The provision in s. 129 of the Metropolis Manage-
ment Act, 1865 («), that the magistrate's decision
on matters under that Act shaU be final and con-
clusive was impliedly repealed by the Summary
Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which authorises any person
questioning a decision of a Court of Summary
Junsdiction to apply for a case to be stated (rf)

Where a City gas company had been precluded
by Its private Act from charging more than four
shiUrngs for every thousand feet of gas of a certain
quahty, and the Metropolis Gas Act, 1860 (<),

(<•) Stuart V. Jone. (1852), 22 L. J. Q. B. 1. As to the

sTa'^T.rrr t""*' ""^^ "' ^"'"''= ^-"h Act, 1875,
Bee 38 & 39 Viot. o. 56, a. 256.

(6) Bramton v. Coleheiter, 25 L. J. M. C. 73.

(«) 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 120, repealed by 54 & 55 Viot ■ 76

(d) See 42 & 43 Viot. o. 49, s. 33 ; B. v. Bridge. M Q. B. D.
b09; Goodwm v. Sheffield Corporation. [1902] 1 Q B 629

(e) 23 & 24 Viot. 0. 125.

gTEOIAL SOMETIMES AIFEOTBD BY OENEBAL ACTS. 327

required the City gas companies to supply a better
and more expensive gas at the rate prescribed by
it, which might amount to five shillings and six-
pence (s. 40) per thousand feet ; it was held that the
later provision impliedly r^ipealed the earlier pro-
hibition. Here, however, the general Act avowedly
applied to the company ; and it would have been
nnreaaonable that the better gas which it required
should be supplied at the price mentioned in the
special Act, merely because the latter had not
been repealed in express terms (a).

The Metropolitan Police Courts Act, 1839
(2 & 3 Vict. c. 71), s. 47, which provided that
penalties under existing and future Acts, which
should be adjudged by police magistrates, should
be paid to the receiver of the police district, and
the subsequent Act, 17 & 18 Vict. o. 38 (against
gaming houses), which enacted that the penalties
which it inflicted should be recoverable before two
justioes (or before a police magistrate, since he
has the same jurisdiction as two justices), and
should be paid to the overseers of the poor of
the parish in which the offence was committed,
were construed so as to be consistent with each
other, by limiting the application of the penalties
nnder the later Act, to cases where they were im-
posed by justices, and applying them in conformity

(o) Cheat Central Qaa Co. v. Clarice (1862), 32 L. J. C. P. 41.
See also Parry v. CroydoH Gas Co., 15 C. B- N. 8. 568.

i'll

i

328

INTGIIPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

with the earlier statute, where they were adjudged
by a police magistrate (a).

When a general Aot is incorporated into a
special one, the provisions of the latter wonld
prevail over any of the former with which they
were inconsistent (h). It may be added also, that
when an Aot on one subject, such as highways,
incorporates some of the provisions comprised in
another relating to a different subject, such as
poor rates,' it does not thereby incorporate the
modifications of those provisions which are sub-
sequently made in the latter Act (c).

It has been said to be a rule that one private
Act of Parliament cannot repeal another except
by express enactment (d) ; but necessiixy implica-
tion must, no doubt, be oonsiderod ac involved
in this expression (c), if the intention of the

(a) Wrag v. Ellin, 38 L. J. M. 0. 45. Hee also Beeeim of
Police Diitriet v. Bell, 41 L. J. M. 0. 153. In S. v. Tilterlm,
[1895] 3 Q. B. 61, in which Wray v. Ellie is doubted and
distinguished, it was held in oases of prosecutions instituted i)y
a local authority fines must be paid to the olfioer of such
.\uthority.

(6) A.G V. a.E. Bn. Co., L. B. 7 Ch. 475, L. B. 6 H. L. 367.

(c) Bird V. Adcoch, 47 L. J. M. C. 133. As a result of this
decision it seems doubtful whether highway rates are apportion-
able {between outgoing and incoming tenants.

(d) Per Turner L.J., Birkenhead Dockt v. Laird, 4 De G. M.
& G. 733. See ex. gr. PKipnon v. Harveti, sup. p. 393.

(e) Coiiip. Lord Mansfield's dictum in B. v. AlAot, '2 Doug.
553, sup. p. 237.

f

nrUKD BBPKAL— PENAL ACTS.

329

Legislatnre be bo manifeBted. If the later of the
tvo AotB be inoonsistent with the ooutinued exlBt-
eaoe of the earlier one, the earlier must inevitably
b« abrogated (a).

SECTION IV. — IMPLIED BEFKAL IN PENAL AOTB.

The queBtion whether a new Act impliedly
repeals an old one (Bee sup. p. 284 et seg.) has
recently arisen in constroing Acts which deal
anew with existing offences without expressly
referring to the past legislation respecting them.
The problem often arises whether the manner in
which the matter is dealt with in the later Act
shows that the Legislature intended merely to
make an amendment or addition to the existing
law, or to treat the whole subject de novo, and
BO to make a tabula rasa of the pre-existing law.
Of course, where the objects of the two Acts ore
not identical, each of them being rustrioted to its
own object, no conflict takes place. Thus, an
Act which empowered justices to commit for a
month an apprentice guilty of any misconduct in
his service, was not repealed by a later ••« which
empowered them to compel an apprentice who
absented himself to make compensation for his
absence, and to commit him, in default, for three

(o) See ex. gr. Dam v. Metrop. Board, sup. p. 293. See Green
V, fi., 1 App. 0»s. 513,

aso

INTEBPHBTATION OF STATUTES.

months (o). The object of the first Act was to
punish the apprentice, while that of the other
was to compensate the master. It may be re-
marked that by virtue of s. 12 of the Employers
and Workmen Act, 1875, the summary jurisdiction
of justices is now confined to those apprentices
upon whose binding a premium not exceeding X26
has been paid.

It would seem that an Act which (without
altering the nature of the oflfenoe, as by making
It felony instead of misdemeanour) imposes a new
kind of punishment, or provides a new course of
procedure for that which was already an offence,
at least, at common law, is usually regarded as
cumulative, and as not superseding the pre-exist-
ing law. For instance, though 9 & 10 Will. III.
0. 36 (A), visits the offence of blasphemy with
personal incapacities and imprisonment, an offender
might also be indicted for the common law
offence (c). The repealed 2 W. & M., Sess. 2, c. 8,
which prohibited keepingswine in houses in London
on pain of the forfeiture of the swine so kept, did
not abolish the liability to fine and imprisonment
on indictment at common law for the nuisance (d).

(o) Oray v. Cookion (1812), 16 Ea8t, 13. Comp. B. v. Youle,
int. p. 334.

(i) PartiaUy repealed by 53 Geo. III. c. 160.

(c) B. V. Carlile, 3 B. & Aid. 161. See also Steek v. Bramm
(1872), L. B. 7 C. P. 261, at p. 268.

(d) B. V. Wigg, 2 Salt 460.

UPLnD REPEAL— PXKAL AOTa.

881

So, 3 A 4 W. <& M. 0. 11, 8. 10, in imposing a
penalty of £5, recoverable tammarily, on pariah
offioen who refased -to receive a pauper removed
to their parish by an order of jastioes, was held to
leave those oflBoers still liable to indictment for
the common law offence of disobeying the order,
which the jastioes had authority to make under
13 & 14 Car. II. c. 12. In such oases, it is
piesomed that the Legislature knew that the
offence was punishable by indictment, and that, as
it did not in express terms abolish the common
law proceeding, it intended that the two remedies
should oo-ezist (a). At all events, the change
made by the new law was not of a character to
justify the conolnsiou that there was any inten-
tion to abrogate the old; and in most of the
examples cited, the presumption against an in-
tention to oust the jurisdiction of the Superior
Coarts would strengthen it. Where the Metro-
politan Police Act, 1839, by one section (s. S7)
empowered a magistrate to impose a penalty of
not more than 40«. for an offence, and by another
section (s. 77) empowered him if the penalty was
not paid to commit the offender to prison for a
month, and a later statute (Metropolitan Police
Act, 1864) repealed the former section, and sub-
stitnted for it one empowering the magistrate to

(a) B. V. Bobitum (1769), 2 Burr. 800, per Lord Mansfield, at

I f

^ niTRRPUTATtON OF 8TATDTKH.

impoM the Muue penalty or to commit to prison
for not more than three days, it was held that this
did not impliedly repeal the latter seoUon, but it
was competent for f-ie magistrate to sentence an
offender to pay a penalty of 40»., and in default of
payment to be imprisoned for a month (o).

Under s. 88, Intorpretation Act, 1889 (5), where
an offence is punishable under more than one \ct
or under an Act and at common law, the off'ender'
unless the contrary intention appears, may be'
punished under either, but shall not be punished
twice for the same offence.

Where a statute alter' 'he qmlity and incidents
of an offence, as by making that which was a
felony merely a misdemeanour, it would be con-
strued as impliedly repealing the old law. Thus
16 Geo. III. 0. 30 (c), which imposed a pecunian;
penalty merely, on persons who hunted or killed
deer with oueir faces blackenp'. was held to have
repealed so much of the Black Act (9 Geo. I. c. 29),
as made that offence capital (d).

(o) 3 4 3 Viot 0. 47, and 27 4 28 Viot o. 65, s. 1 (repealed
to worfg -' heu thereof " by 8. L. B., 1893) ; B. v. Hopiin., 62
Li. J. M. 0. 87.

(i) 62 & 63 Viot. o. 63.

(c) Repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. IV. o. 27, s. 1.

(d) R. V. Davi., 1 Leaoh, 271. See per Lord Esher M.E.,
Lee V. Dangar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 348; and see 9 Geo. I o. 22
(repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. IV. o. 27, a. 1).

IMPUED BCPIAL— PKIAL AOTt. 888

Again, where the pnnithment or penalty ia
ilt«red in degree but not in kind, the later pro-
riiion would be ooniidered aa luperseding the
etrlier one (a). Thoa, S Oeo. I. o. 27 (b), which
imposed a fine of i£100 and three months' im-
priionment for a first ofTence, and fine at discretion
ind twelve months' imprisonment for the second,
was held to be impliedly repealed by 23 Qeo. II.
0, 13 (c), which increased the punishment for the
fint offence to a fine of jESOO and twelve months'
imprisonment, and for the second to i 1,000 and
two years' imprisonment {d). So, it was held in
America that a statute which punished the rescue
or harbour of a fagitive slave by a penalty of 600
dollars, recoverable 1/ the owner for his own
benefit, and reserved all rights of action for
damages, was repealed by a later enactment which
imposed for the same offences a penalty of 1,000
dollars on conviction, and gave the party aggrieved
1,000 dollars by way of damages recoverable by
action («).

Indeed, it ha« been laid down generally, that if

(a) See per Lord Abinger, Rt»der$on v. Sherborne, 2 M. & W.
236, and A.-a. t. Lodmood, 9 M. & W. 391 ; and jxr Maitm B.,
BoKniOTi V. Bmerton, 4 H. & 0. 350 ; Cole v. Coullon, 9') h. J.
M. C. 136. Comp. Simt v. Pay, 58 L. J. M. C. 39.

(b) Repealed 5 IV. o. 97.
(e) Repealed S. L. R., 1867.

(d) B. V. Cotor, i Burr. 2026.

(e) Norrii v. Crocker, 13 Howard, 429.

ii

M

884

INTEnPRETATlON OP BTATDTE8.

a later statute again describes an oflfence created
by a former one, and affixes a different punishment
to It, varying the procedure; giving, for instance
an appeal where there was no appeal before'
directing something more or something different'
something more comprehensive ; the earlier statute
IS imphedly repealed by it (a). The 6 Geo III
0. 26, which made an artificer or workman who
absented himself from his employment, in breach
of his contract, liable to three months' imprison-
ment, was held to be impliedly repealed by
4 Geo. IV. c. 34 (repealed by 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86
s. 17), which punished not only that offence'
but also that of not entering on the service'
after having contracted in writing to serve'
with three months' imprisonment, plus a pro-
pori;ional abatement of wages for the time of
such imprisonment; or in lieu thereof, with total
or partial foss of his wages and discharge from
service (6). So s. 11, 64 Geo. III. c. 159, which
imposed a penalty of JIO, leviable, not by distress
but by imprisonment, in default of immediate
payment, on any person throwing baUast or
rubbish out of a vessel into a harbour or river so
as to tend to the obstruction of the navigation,

(a) Per Our., Mkhett v. B,.um, SH L. J. M. 0. 53; m,
BramweU B., Be Baker. 2 fl. & N. 2x9 ; per Martin B., riT
V. Mappm, 30 L. J M. C. 237.

Jb) B. V. Toule, 6 H. ft N. 753 ; Toule v. Map^in, 30 L. J. M. C.
234. Coinp. Oueiu v. Janee, sup. p. 308.

-ilil

IMM.iEC lEPEAL — PENAL ACTS.

335

and gave an appea , was held to repeal by implica-
tion the earlier Act, 19 Geo. II. c. 22, which had
imposed, without appeal, a penalty of not less than
508. and not more than £5 for the same offence,
leviable by distress or imprisonment, in default of
distress. The preamble of the later Act, indeed,
recited that it was expedient to " extend " the pro-
visions of the earlier one, and though its implied
repeal seems to have been thought at variance with
such an intention, it may be questioned whether its
provisions were not "extended " by what was, in
effect, their re-enactment with an increased penalty
and a summary method of its recovery (a). Where
a local Act imposed on " all persons " engaged in
making gas, who suffered impure matter to flow
into any stream, a penalty of -^'200, recoverable
by a common informer by action, and a further
penalty of jE20 for every day the nuisance was
continued, payable to the informer or to the party
injured as the justices thought fit ; and the Gas-
works Clauses Act, 1847 (10 & 11 Vict. c. 15),
afterwards imposed the same penalty on the
" undertakers " of gasworks authorised by special
Act, recoverable by the party injured ; it was
held that the earlier Act was repealed as regarded
such undertakers (i). So, an Act which imposed

(a) MUheU v. Brown, 28 h. J. M. 0. 53, and see Forltieue v.
Si. Mallhew Tettry, [1891] 2 Q. B., at p. 178.
(fi) Parry v. Croydon Cm Co., 15 0. B. N. S. 568.

83C

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTEtl.

a penalty of not less than 405. or more than
j65 upon any owner or occupier who did not
immediately remove certain projections from
hig house upon notice to do so, was held to
be impliedly repealed by a later Act which imposed
a penalty not exceeding £5 (without specifying
any minimum), and a further penalty of 40«. a
day for a continuance of the offence, upon any
owner or occupier who did not after fourteen days'
notice remove such projection (a).

It has been observed by the Supreme Court of
the United States, that in the interpretation of
laws for the collection of revenue,'the provisions of
which are often very complicated and numerous in
order to guard against frauds, it would be a strong
proposition to assert that the main provisions of
any such law were repealed, merely because in
subsequent laws other powers were given, and
other modes of proceeding were provided, to
ascertain whether any frauds had been attempted.
The more natural inference is that such new laws
are auxiliary to the old (b).

But little weight can attach to the argument,

(o) 57 Geo. III. cxrix. s. 72, 18 & 19 Vict. e. 120, s. 119;
FoTleteue v. St. Matthea, Bethtml Green, [1891] 2 Q. B. 170;
&imi»er» v. Holhom Board of Worii, [1893] 1 Q. B. 612. But
see Keep v. St. Mary's, Newington, [1894] 2 Q. B. 524, and mup.
Wyatt V. Gema, [1893] 2 Q. B. 225.

(/)) Per Cur., V. S. v. Wood, 16 Peters, 342.

lUFLtED BBPBAL — PENAL ACTS.

337

1 I

that because an offence falls within two distinct
enactments in their ordinary meaning, a secondary
construction is to be sought in order to exclude
it from one of the two. Thus, an enactment
which prohibited under a penalty any person
concerned in the administration of the poor laws
from supplying goods ordered for the relief of
any pauper, was not construed as excluding a
poor law guardian, merely because another pro-
vision expressly made such ofiBcers liable to a
much higher penalty for supplying the parish
workhouse with goods (a). Where one section
of an American Act enacted that no ship from a
foreign port should unload any of its cargo but
in open day, on pain of forfeiture of both goods
and ship ; and another prohibited the unloading
of any ship bound for the United States, before
she arrived at the proper place of discharge of
her cargo, on pain of forfeiture of the unladen
goods; it was held that a foreign ship bound
for New York, and unloading a part of her cargo
at night at an intermediate harbour in the United
States, did not escape from falling within the
former section, merely because it fell also within
the latter. It was observed that there was no
principle of law or interpretation to authorise a
Court to withdraw a case from the express pro-
hibitions of one clause, on the ground that the

(o) Daniet V. Harvey, 43 L. J, M. C. 121, inf. p. 455.
l.S. 22

808 INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

ofienoe was also punished by a different penalty
in another. Neither could be held nugatory {a).

However, where a repealed statute by one section
empowered justices to order the abatement of a
nuisance, punishing disobedience of their order
with a fine of 10;. a day, and by another section
empowered them to prohibit the recurrence of the
nuisance under a penalty of 20s. a day, it was held
in a case where orders had been made at different
times under both sections, and two informations
were laid for a breach of both by a fresh act of
the same nuisance, that there could be only one
conviction (6). The general principle being that a
person cannot be convicted twice on the same
facts.

(a) The Indunlry, 1 Gallison, 111.

(6) 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 121 ; Edlatom v. Bame» (1875), 45 L. J.
M. C. 73. As to existing law, see for England (except London)
38 & 39 Vict. 0. 65 ; for London 54 & 55 Viot. o. 76.

CHAPTEE VIII.

SECTION I.— PBE8UMPTI0N AGAINST INTENDING WHAT
IS INCONVENIENT OK UNBEASONABLE.

In determining either the general object of the
Legislature, or the meaning of its language in
any particular passage, it is obvious that the
intention which appears to be most in accord
with convenience, reason, justice, and legal
prmoiples, should, in all cases of doubtful signi-
ficance, be presumed to be the true one (a). An
argument drawn from an inconvenience, it has
been said, is forcible in law (A) ; and no less, but
rather more, force is due to any drawn from an
absurdity or injustice. But a Court of Law has
nothing to do with the reasonableness or un-
reasonableness of a statutory provision, except
so far as it may help it in interpreting what the
Legislature has said (c). The treaty between
Louis xn. and the Pope, which gave the King
the right of appointing to " all bishoprics vacated
by the death of bishops in France," was for

(o) The above paaeage cited by counsel, Cory v. France (1911),

(6) Co. Litt. 97a.

(c) Per Lord Halsbury, Cook v. Vuyder, [1901] A. C. 107

in

340

INTBBrBETATIO.V Of BTATUTES,

instance, properiy construed, not as giving him
the right of appointing to a foreign bishopric
whenever its incumbent happened to die ia
France, but, more consistently with good sense
and convenience, as authorising him to fill the
bishoprics of his own kingdom, when their holders
died, whether at home or abroad (n). A statute
which gives an appeal to any person thinkir^'
himself aggrieved by any order, conviction, judg-
ment, or determination of a justice, does not apply
to a prosecutor complaining of an acquittal. If
it did, the person acquitted would be liable to
be twice vexed for the same cause. Besides, the
prosecutor could not legitimately be considered
as aggrieved (/*). Where there is an appeal from
a magistrate's decision, " when the sum adjudged
to be paid on conviction shall exceed two pounds,"
the question whether the penalty only, or the
penalty plus the costs were intended, would be
decided on similar general considerations of con-
venience and reason. It would be thought more
likely that the Legislature intended to give an

(a) Puff. L. N. b. 5, o. 12, 8. 8.

('-) 5 & 6 Wm. IV. c. 50, 8. 105 (s. 105 partly repealed by 47 x
48 Vict. 0. 43, 8. 4) ; jB. v. London Jim., 25 Q. B. D. 357. Dut
under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts (20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, and
42 & 43 Vict. 0. 49), see Stokes v. Mitcheton, [1902] 1 K. B.
857 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 677 ; and see Bochdah Building Soelel,, v.
Mayor Jcc. Bochdah (1886), 51 J. P. 134.

CONVENIENCE AND REASONABI.ENKSS INTENDED. 341

appeal only when the offence was of some gravity,
and not merely where the costs (which would
vary according to the distances to be travelled by
the parties and their witnesses, the number of
the latter, and similar accidental ciroumstanoes)
happened to swell the amount above the fixed
limit (rt).

An Act regulating local rates, which gave an
appeal against any rate to the Quarter Sessions,
and provided, for enforcing its payment, that two
justices might issue a distress warrant against the
goods of the defaulter, if he did not, on being
summoned, "prove to them that he was not charge-
able with, or liable to pay such rate," wouM not
be construed as authorising the justices to enter
upon any inquiry into the validity of the rate,
if it was valid on its face; though, literally,
the defaulter would unquestionably prove his
non-liability, if he proved its invalidity. If
question of validity, which was left to the
Quarter Sessions, was also open to the justices
required to enforce the rate, they might decide
against the validity of the rate after it had been
adjudged valid by the Quarter Sessions (4); a

(a) B. V. Warmcishire (1856), 25 L. J. M. C. 119. And see
B. V. Noti, (1905), 74 L. J. K. B. 633. But see s. 49, 42 & 43
Vict. c. 49.

(6) Birmivgham v. Shaic, 18 L. J. M. C. 89 ; Williama, Be, 2
E. & B. 84 ; B. V, Kiftr/slm, 97 L. J. M. C, 199 ; B. v. Bradshme,

I

!: i

842

INTEBPllETATION or BTATUTEH.

conflict which could not readily be supposed to
have been intended. It would be otherwise,
indeed, if the rate bore invalidity on its face,
by not showing that it was made in accordance
with the statutory authority given for the pur-
pose ; for they could not be required to enforce
what did not profess to be a valid demand made
by competent authority (a).

A constable, authorised by statute at all times
to enter licensed premises for the purpose of
preventing or detecting violations of the licensing
laws, cannot demand admission unless he has
some reasonable ground for suspecting a breach
of the law (i).

An Act which empowered magistrates to make
an order that any dog found to be dangerous.
should "be kept under proper control or de-
stroyed," might, on this principle, be construed

29 L. J. M. C. 176; R. v. nigginton, 31 L. J. M. C. 189; %.
JHni/, Id. lai ; R. v. lAnfmd, 7 E.'& B. 950; S. v. Flmk, 23
L. ,T. M. C. 201. See Walce v. Sheffield (1880), 63 L. J. M. C.
1. The remedy open to a person who deems himself aggrieved
by the decision of a local authority under the Public Health
Act, 1875, is set out in s. 268 of the Act ; and see Briaiul Corp.
V. Sinnett, [1918] 1 Ch. 62, C. A.

(o) Eastern Cmntiet By. Co., Be, 25 L. J. M. C. 49. See M. v.
Croke, 1 Cowp. 30

(h) 37 & 38 Vict. c. 49, s. 16, repealed by s. 81, Licensing Act,
1910; Duncan v. Dowding, [1897] 1 Q. B. 575; B. v. DdIMm, 48
J. P. 182.

CWNTFVIBNCB ASTt BEABONABLENESS INTENDED. 343

as giving the magistrate the option of making
ar cbeolnte order for the destmotion of a
daiigeious dog; not as requiring that his order
should be in the alternative terms of the Act,
which would place the option in the hands of
the owner of the dog; for this would be much
less e£9oaoions and convenient (a).

The 24 & 26 Vict. o. 98, which, after making
it felony to engrave without authority plates of
bank-notes purporting to be notes of the Bank of
England or of Ireland, or of any other company,
declared in another section that the enactment
should not apply to Scotland, except where it
was expressly so provided, was held to apply to
the engraving of the notes of a Scotch bank ; the
rational object and meaning of the excluding
provision being, not that forgeries against Scotch
banks might be committed in England with
impunity, but that, when committed in Scotland,
they should not fall within the Act (6).

Where an Act, after transferring all duties of
paving and lighting from existing Commissioners
to a Board of Works, provided that all contracts

(a) PieitHng v. JHbrji (1874), 43 L. J. M. 0. 143. As to the
meaning of the word " dangerous " in relation to a dog, see the
Dogs Act, 1906.

(6) B. V. Braeienridge, 37 L. J. M. 0. 86. Comp. OLoghhn,
Be, L. B. 6 Ch. 406, and see as to existing la-.;, Forgery Act,
1913 (3 & 4 Gea V. o. 27, s. 9).

844

INTKBpaETATION OF BTATCTES.

with the former should remain valid, that no
action upon them against the Commissioners
should ahate, and that all liabilities under aiuh
contracts should be paid out of rates to be made
by the new Board ; it was held, on the ground
of iti being the more convenient coarse, than an
action on a contract made with the Commismoners
might be brought against the Board (a). 20 A 21
Vict. c. 43, and 42 & 43 Vict, c, 49, s. 33, which
authorise a party aggrieved by a decision of
justices to apply within three days for a case, and
direct that " at the time of the application," and
before the case is delivered to him, he shall enter
into recognisances to prosecute the appeal, was, as
regards the earlier statute, held substantially
complied with if the recognisances were entered
into within the three days, though not at the time
of the application (A). The time for application is
now extended to mien days under rule 18, Summary
Jurisdiciion Eules, 1886. It has been repeatedly
held that when an Act gives an appeal to the
"next" sessions, it means not necessarily the
next which takes place in order of time, or an
adjournment of it (c), but the next to which
it is practicable with fair diligence to carry the

(0) SimoU V. Whitechapel (1858), 27 L. J. C. P. 177.

(1) Chapman v. BMnton (1858), 28 L. J. M. C. 30. As to
practice, see S. v. Keith, [1905] 1 K. B. 212.

(c) B. V. Sumex, 4 B. H, SStt

CONVBNIBNCE AND HBA80IIABLENE88 IKTENDED. 348

appeal (a). It is obvious that a stricter construe-
tion would often have the effect of taking away
tlie appeal which the Legislature intended to give.
When an Act gave any person aggrieved (A) by an
order of justices, four months " for making his
complaint to the Quarter Sessions," it was con-
strued to mean, not that the complaint must be
heard within that time, but that the appeUant
should have that time for notifying his intention
to appeal; otherwise he might sometimes be
limited to a few weeks, or, if no sessions were
held within the four months, he would be deprived
of his appeal altogether (<■).

The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1897 (repealed
by Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906), provides
that proceedings for the recovery of compensation
nnder the Act shall not be maintainable unless
notice of the accident has been given as soon as
practicable, and unless " the claim for compensa-
tion with respect to such accident has been made

(o) As to what is " next practicable " sessions, see if v
S«rrey JJ. (1880), 50 L. J. M. C. 10. See also B. v. Middle..^
W. (1888), 32 Sol. J. 231.

(6) Orate.' Co,,, L. B. 4 Q. B. 715; Boyce v. Hig,jin,.
23 L. J. 0. P. 6 ; Exp. Learoyd, 13 Ch. D. 321 j Exp. Thoday,
2 Ch. D. 229, 797; Yerdin v. Wray, 2 Q. B. D. 608. C<mm
B«V<»-< V. AtherUy, 1 Ex. D. 611 ; Be Shaftoe; Charity. 3 Ann
C»8. 872. "'

W B. V. Emx (1864), 34 L. J. M. C. 41 , B. v. Middlesex
6 M. & a 279. See also inf. p. 360.

i

•r

846

INTKBPnCTATION OF STATOTl*

within six months from the ooonrrenoe of the
accident causing the injury." The Hoase of
Lorde has held " the claim for compensation " to
mean a notice of claim for compensation gent
to the employer, and not the initiation of pro-
ceedings (a).

An Act which aathorised the Quarter Sessions
to give a successful appellant against a conviction,
costs against the party appealed against, and
directed that the notice of appeal should be served
on the convicting justice, was construed as not
making the latter a party to the appeal ; for it was
to be presumed that the Legislature did not intend
so great an anomaly as rendering a judicial oflicer
liable to costs for an act done bond fide in the
discharge of his judicial functions (i). The re-
spondent, in such a case, is the prosecutor before
the magistrate ; though this construction involves
the hardship of making him liable to the costs of

(o) C0& 61 Viot 0. 37, b. 2 (1) : 6 Edw. VII. o. 58, 8. 3 (I) ;
Pmeell v. iHain CoUiery Co., [1900] A. C. 366 ; the olaim need
not be in writing (Xowe v. Mi/m (1906), 7S L. J. K. B. G51 ;
Omf. Hufhet v. Cotd Taton Co. (1910), 78 L. J. K. B. 539), nor
need it olaim a speoifio sum {Thompton v. Ooold, 79 L. J. K. B.
90S). But apparently a mere notice of accident is not a claim,
Perry v. CTemento, [1901] 49 W. B. 669.

(fc) a. V. HanU, 1 B. 4 Ad. 654; B. v. Smith, 29 L. J. M. C.
216 ; B. V. Pardey (1864), 34 L. J. M. C. 4. See B. v. Brad-
laugh, 2 Q. B. D. 569 j 3 Q. B. D. 607 ; B. v. London Jut., [1895]
1 Q. B. 616.

(■OMVKNIRNOK ANll BKAKONABLKNM8 INTRNDKD. 347

a proceeding of which he has had no notice, or
perhaps even knowledge.

The statute which enacts that " a solicitor may
make an agreement in writing with his client
respecting the amoant and manner of hii re-
maneration," was held to require impliedly that
the agreement should be signed by the client ; as
otherwise it would be possible for a solicitor to
place a document signed by himself only, and
containing terms favourable to him, before his
client, and then contend that the latter was bound
to it (a).

Where one Act authorised the recovery of
certain claims before justices of the peace, pro-
ceedings before whom are limited to six months,
and another Act authorised their recovery, when
not exceeding £20, in the County Courts, where
the term of limitation was six years, it was held
that suits for them in the latter Courts were
limited to six months, to avoid imputing to the
Legislature the anomalous intention of allowing
six years for the recovery of small sums, while
giving only six months for large ones {h). Similarly,

(n) Lewu, Be, 1 Q. B. D. 724 ; but this case and the above-
stated reason therefor, were subject to adverse oritioism in
Thmpnm, Be, 63 L^ J. Q. B. 189, 190. See, however, Bake v.
Frneh (1905), 76 L. J. Oh. 605.

(b) 11 & 12 Vict. c. 63, s. 39, repealed and re^nacted by
1. 196, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 66 ; 24 & 26 Viot. o. 61, s. 24, repealed

I

h;l

, — L-tl I

848

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

■l-il
11 il

on the ground (among others) that it wonid be
unreasonable to presume that the Legislature
intended to impose a more severe penalty on
a person who without malice wilfully gathered
uncultivated mushrooms than on one who unlaw-
fully and maliciously destroyed cultivated roots
or plants used for food, it was held that in view
of s. 24, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, which imposed a
penalty of one mouth's imprisonment or a fine
of £1 for the latter offence, whUst s. 52 of the
same Act, made it an offence punishable with two
months' imprisonment or a iine of £5 to " wilfully
or maliciously commit any damage, injury, or spoil
to or upon any real or personal property what-
soever for which no punishment is hereinbefore
provided," could not be regarded as applying to a
case such as the former (a). But a milk carrier
who damaged his master's milk, not to injure his
master but in order to make a profit for himself,
was held to be guilty of an offence under the
latter section (A). Upon the ground that if an act

and re-enacted by a. 261, 38 & 39 Vict. o. 55. The jurisdiction
of County Courts is now extended to claims not exceeding £100.
See County Courts Act, 1888, s. 81. Tottenham Board v. Boutell,
1 Ex. D. 514 ; Blackium (Mayor of) v. Sanderton, [1902] 1 K. B.
794 ; 71 L. J. K. B. 590. See also Nkholmn v. KWs, 28 L J.
M. C, 238, and note especially Boltm Corp. v. Scott (1913), 77
J. P. 193, C. A.

(o) Qardner v. ManiUmdge (1887), 19 Q. B. D. 217.

(6) Boper v. Knott, [1898] 1 Q. B. 868 ; 67 L. J. Q. B. 574.

CONVENIKNOE AND HEASONaBLENESS INTENDED. 349

be done wilfully or wantonly it raises a presump-
tion it is done maliciously (a)

The Bankruptcy Acts (i) which vested the future
as well as the present property of the bankrupt
in the assignee or trustee, imported the necessary
exception, to save him from starving, of the
remuneration which the bankrupt might earn by
his labour after his bankruptcy, and the damages
which he might recover for any personal injury (c) ;
and while establishing the right of the trustee to
future property as between himself and the bank-
rupt, did not affect the right of the latter as
between himself and his debtor, unless the trustee
interfered, to sue for a debt which accrued due
after the vesting of the property in the trustee ;
and the provision contained in the Acts that the
bankrupt should not have power to recover such
debts, was similarly limited in effect (d). And
generally property earned by the personal exertions
and skill of the bankrupt do not pass to his

^mS^

'it

(a) B. V. Welch (1878), 40 J. P. 183.

(d) The Bankruptcy Act, 1914 (4 & 5 Geo. V.), praotioally
repeals all earlier statutes.

(<■) Beckham v. Drake, 2 H. L. Gas. 579 ; Be Wilaoii (1878), 8
Ch. D. 364.

{d) Herbert v. Sayer, 13 L. J. Q. B. 209 ; Jackson v. Duniham,
22 L. J. Ex. 13; Jamcuon v. Brick Co. (1878), 4 Q. B. D. 208;
Cohca V. MUeliell, 25 Q. B. D. 262. But see Be Clark, [1894] 2
y. B. 393 ; and see 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, s. 38.

850 INTKBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

trustee (a). But in order that such moneys should
be immune there must be an element of periodi-
city in the earnings (b). The Aot which imposes
a penalty on the piracy of a dramatic work, or
" any part thereof," would not be broken unless a
material and substantial part was pirated. It is
not to be supposed that the Legislature intended
to punish the misappropriation of what was of no
value (c). :

A oonstruction which facilitated the evasion of
a statute would, on similar grounds of incon-
venience, be avoided. Thus, an Aot which for-
bade an innkeeper to suffer any gaming "in his
house or premises," was construed as extending
to gaming by himself and his personal friends
in his private rooms in the licensed premises ; for
a construction which limited the prohibition to
the guests in the public rooms would have opened
the door to collusion and evasion (d), but apparently

(a) ShoMred v. BoberU) (1899), 68 L. J. Q. B. 998.
(6) Id. (1899), 2 Q. B., at p. 563.

(c) Chattertm v. Cave, 2 C. P. D. 42 ; 3 App. Cas. 1S3 ; Pit.
V. Niehol<u, L. B. 5 Ch. 261 ; Bradbury v.UoUcn, L. E. 8 Kx. 1 .
Planchi v. Braham, 44 B. B. 642 ; jyAlmaiue v. Bootei/, 41 B. fi.
273 ; Waller v. Steinkopff, 61 L. J. Oh. 521. For an exhaustive
disquisition on the Copyrighl; Act, 1911, see Clerk and Liadsell
on Tor<», Chap. XXI.

(d) PaUen v. Wiymer (1860), 29 L. J. M. C. 189 ; Corhd v.
Uaigh, 5 C. P. D. 50 ; see also per Brett L.J., Ilea v. Wal Uim
Union, 8 Q. B. D 79, Cump. Briyden v. Ueighe», 1 Q. B. D. 330;

OONVENIBNCB AND BBA8ONAB1.ENESS UiTKNUED. 361

betting upon horse races does not come within the
meaning of the word " gaming " (a).

And yet, a construction facilitating evasion
(see sup. p. 206 et seq.), even to the extent of de-
frauding the revenue, may be justified and required
by considerations of oonvenienoe, as in the case
of Stamp Acts; where the question whether a
docnment, produced on the 'learing of a trial, is
Bnfficiently stamped, depends solely on what
appears on the face of the document, to the exclu-
sion of all extrinsic evidence to prove the con-
trary ; for to admit evidence to invalidate it, would
lead to the intolerable inconvenience of holding a
collateral inquiry, to the interruption of the trial
of the cause in which the paper was tendered (6).

Acts which impose a pecuniary penalty have
sometimes given rise to a question, when there
were two or more offenders, whether one joint or
several separate penalties were intended ; and this,
where the Act has left it open to doubt, has been
said to depind on whether the offence was in its

Tmell V. Omnden, 2 Id. 383 ; Iwferv. Torrent, Id. 403; BaiUy
V. DmicB, 1 Id. 84 ; Oallagher v. Badd, [1898] 1 Q. B. 114.

(«) i«ep V. Slnem (1909), 73 J. P. 112.

(h) Whirtler V. Fnrtter (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. 161; Auitin v
Bmyard (1865), 84 L. J. Q. B. 217 ; OaUy v. Fry, 2 Ex. D. 266
(approved in Boyal Bank of Scotland v. Tottenham, [1894] 2
Q. B. 716). Comp. ^arkc v. Soche, 47 L .1, Q. B. 147.

i

362

lOTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

nature joint or several. When the offence is one
in which every participator is justly punishable in
proportion to the part which he took in it, the in-
ference would obviously be that a separate penalty
on each was intended. In the offence of assault-
ing and resisting a custom-house officer, one may
resist, another molest, a third run away with
the goods: all are distinct acts, each a separate
offence, and each offender would be liable for his
own separate offence (a) ; nor does the omission to
prosecute one of the parties exonerate the others.
So, under the partially repealed Toleration Act
(1 W. & M. c. 18, confirmed by 10 Anne, c. 2),
which enacts that if any person or persons malici-
ously disturb a congregation, such " person or
persons " shall, on conviction of " the said offence,"
be liable to a penalty of £20 ; it was '^eld that
every person engaged in such a disturbance would
be liable to a separate penalty (6).

So, where two men were convicted of. an assault
and sentenced to pay one penalty, under 9 Geo. IV,
c. 31 (c), the conviction was quashed ; because a
penalty ought to have been imposed on each
offender severally, the offence being in its nature

(o) Per Lord Mansfield, R. v. Clark, 2 Cowp. 610, and see
B. V. Littlechild (1871), 40 h. J. M. C. 137.

(6) JB. V. Uuhe, 3 B. B. 669.

(o) Bepealed by 34 & OS Vict. o. 96, s. 1 : and Bse as to
existing law, 34 & 35 Vict. c. 100.

CONVEKIENCE AND BEA80NABLENE8S INTENDED. 353

several (a). And under s. 30, 1 & 2 Will. IV.
c. 32, which enacts that if " any person " shall
trespass in the daytime on land in search of game,
"such person " shall be liable to a penalty of £2,
every offender is liable to a separate penalty (6).

But it has been said that where the ofifence is
in its nature single, and is punished by a pecuniary
penalty, not one penalty can be imposed on all
the offenders jointly ; upon the ground that if it
be the offence, and not the offender, that is visited
with punishment by the statute, only one penalty
is incurred, however large may be the number of
persons who incurred it. Thus, under a statute
of Aune (o), which enacted that if any unqualified
"person or persons" kept or used hounds for
destroying game, " the person or persons " .^o
offending should forfeu 65, it was held that to
keep or use a greyhound for such a purpose was
punishable by one penalty only, whether tha dog
was kept or used by one or by several persons.
Only one dog was kept, it was said, and only one
penalty, falling on all the offenders jointly, was
imposable (d). The decision has been perhaps

1 '. i

(a) Morgan v. Brotm (1836), 42 R. E. 422 ; 5 L. J. M. 0. 77.

(6) Mayhem v. Wardley, 14 0. B. N. S. 550 ; Prait v. Martin,
(1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 711.

(c) 13 Anne c. 14 ; repealed by S. L. E., 1867.

{d) Hardymann v. Whitaker, 2 East, &7a n. ; S. v. Matheirs,
10 Mod. 26 ; B. v. BUandale, i T. R. 809.

I.S. -23

864

INTBBVKETATION OF STATUTES.

better defended on the ground that the Act, in
speaking of " persons " in the plnral, and providing
that for such "oflfenoe," in the singular, they
should pay £6, and not £5 "each," one joint
offence and penalty were contemplated (a). In an
old case cited in support of this construction, it
was held that the statute 1 & 2 Ph. & M. c. 12,
which prohibited the impounding of a distress in
a wrong place, " upon pain every person offending
should forfeit to the party grieved for every such
offence " a hundred shillings and treble damages,
gave only one penalty against three persons (A).
But although this decision is said to have been
based on the ground that the offence was one only
and joint, the penalty was recoverable only by the
party grieved, and was consequently to be regarded
as a compensation to him, not as a punishment on
the offenders (c). Viewed in this light, it is olear
that only one penalty could be recovered ; for the
injury was the same, whether it was done by one
or by several persons; and it could hardly have
been intended that the pecuniary compensation

(o) Per Aldoraon B., B. v. Dean, 12 M. & W. 42. As to the
rule against contribution between joint tort-feasors, see
Merryweather v. Nixott (1799), 8 T. E. 186.

(b) Partridge v. Naylor, Cro. Eliz. 480, cited in B. v. Clark
(1777), 2 Cowp. 610 ; B. v. King, 1 Salk. 182.

(c) See ex. gr. Steveni v. Jeaeocle, 17 L. J. Q. B. 163. For a
discussion on this case in which it was distinguished, see
Gorres v. Scoll (1874), 43 L. J. Ex. 92.

CWNVBNIENOB AOT) BBASONABLBKB88 INTENDED. 355

for a wrong should vary in amount with the
number of persons oonoemed in doing it.

In referring to cases of this kind, LordMansfield
observed that if partridges wore netted by night,
two or three or more men might draw the net, but
still It constituted but one offence ; and that killing
a bare was bnt one offence, whether one killed it
or twenty, and that it could not be killed more
than once (a). But however pertinent such con-
Biderations might be in measuring the damage
done to the owner of the game, they seem less
applicable to the question of punishing, on public
grounds, a breach of the law. The question
whether the offence was joint or several evidently
arose, not from the nature of the offence, but from
the nature of the penalty. If the penalty had
been corporal instead of pecuniary, the distinction
between joint and several offences could hardly
have occurred; for it would have been found
difficult to apply the rule of one joint penalty t-
two offenders sentenced to five weeks' imprison-
ment or twenty-five lashes. It would seem that
the question whether the penalty is to be under-
stood as separate or joint, where the Act is not
explicit, would be better governed by the con-
sideration whether the penalty was intended as
compensation for a private wrong, or as a punish-
ment for an offence against public justice,
(a) B. V. Clarkt, sup. p. 354.

I il

it

i

J

•■ - T — '■

m

1

806

DITKBPRETATION OF 8TATCTK8.

It is hardly neoegsary to add that all saoh con-
Biderations are immaterial where the language of
the Act is not open to doubt. Thns, where it was
enacted that " every person " who assisted in
unshipping or concealing prohibited goods should
forfeit treble their valne or £100, at the election
of the Commissioners of Customs, it was held that
every person concerned in the offence was liable
to a separa;te penalty (o ; although undoubtedly
the offence was as joint in its nature as in the
case of the wrongful removal of the distress (h).

SECTION n. — PBESUMPTION AOAINBT INTENDING
INJUSTICE OR ABBUBDITT.

A sense of the possible injustice of an interpre-
tation ought not to induce judges to do violence
to well-settled rules of construction, but it may
properly lead to the selection of one rather than
the other of two reasonable interpretations (c).
Whenever the language of the Legislature admits
of two constructions, and if construed in one way
would lead to obvious injustice, the Courts act
upon the view that such a result could not have
been intended, unless the intention had been

(o) 3 & 4 Will. IV. 0. 53 (repealed 8 & 9 Vict. c. 84, s. 2);
B. V. Dean, 12 M. & W. 39.

(6) Partridge v. Naylor, sup. p. 354.

(c) Per Lord Hersohell L.O., Arrou Shipping Co. v. Tyve
Comiiiiesioners, [1894] A. C. 516.

INJUBTICK AND ADBUBDITY AVOIDED.

357

manifested in express words (a). Thns, where a
by-law authorised the Poulters' Company to fine
" all " poulters in London or " within seven miles
round," who refused to be admitted into their
company, it was held that, inasurach as no poulter
could legally belong to the company who was not
also a freeman of the City, the by-law was to be
construed as limited to those poulters who were
also freemen ; to avoid the injustice of punishing
men for refuuing to enter into a company to which
they could not legally belong (i). So, in ss. 112
and 198, Bankrupt Law Consolidations Act, 1849,
which protected a bankrupt from arrest by his
" creditors" (0), this word was oontrued as limited
to those creditors who had debts provable under
the bankruptcy, for it would have been obviously

(a) Per Lord OampbeU, JJ. v. Sieen (1859), Bell, C. C. 97, and
B. V. Land Tax Com., 3 E. & B. 716 ; per Keating J., Boon v.
fliwori, L. E. 9 0. P. 308 j per Brett L.J., B. v. Xonck, 2
Q. B. D. 555 ; Smith v. 0. W.B.Co.,3 App. Cas. 165 ; .per Lord
Blackburn, Boihes v. Kirkcaldy Commiitiouert, 7 App. Cas. 702 ;
per Lord Cairns, HUl v. East it West India Dock Co., 53 L. J. Ch.
845; 9 App. Cas. 456; Bailton v. Wood, 15 App. Cas. 363 ; per
Brett M.B., Plmutead Board of Works v. Spadtvmn, 13 Q. B. D.
378 ; per Lord Esher M.B., Dunn, Exp., 23 Q. B. D. 461.

(6) PouZter.' Co. v. PUllipa (1840), 6 Bing. N. 0. 314 ; B. v.
SaMlers' Co., 32 L. J. Q. B. 337. See also Corhett, Exp., 14
Ch. D., per Brett L.J., at p. 129.

(0 As to present law relating to control over persons and
property of an insolvent debtor, see ss. 32-23, Bankruptcy Act,
1914.

868

INTBBPBBTATIOK Ot BTATUTB8.

unjiiit and was therefore presumably not intondud,
that his certificate should protect a bankrupt not
only against those creditors who had, or might
have proved under the bankruptcy, but also against
creditors whose claims were not barred by it {,:).
The provision in s. 2, 50 & 61 Vict. c. 66, that
the Court of Bankruptcy should refuse a banknipt
his discharge " in all oases " where the debtor had
committed an offence under the Debtors Act,
1869, was held to apply only to oases connected
with or arising out of the bankruptcy and not to
a misdemeanour committed subsequently to the
adjudication, the language used being so wide
that if it received its full grammatical meaning
it would produce injustice so enormous that the
Legislature could not have intended mere general
words to lead to such a result (6). The Public
Authorities Protection Act, 1893, which provides
that a judgment for a successful defendant in an
action against a public authority " shall carry
costs to be taxed as between solicitor and client,"
does not take away the discretionary power vested

(o) Grace v. JBiihop, 25 L. J. Ex. 68 ; Phittipi v. Poland, L. E.
1 C. P. 204; Poland, Be, h. B. 1 Ob. 366; Willianu v. Bote,
L. B. 3 Ex. 6, per Bramwell B.

(6) Broeielbani, Be (1889), 23 Q. B. D. 461 ; Jone$, h re
(1890), 24 Q. B. D. 689; aflirmed 59 L. J. Q. B. 331. As to
present law relating to disoharge of bankrupt, see s. 26, Bank-
mptoy Act, 1914.

INJUBVICS AND AWIUBDITr AVOIDKD,

3fiU

in a jadge to deprive the saoceBsfnl defendant of his
coits (a). The enactment which protected magis-
trates in India from actions for any wrong or
injury done by them iu the exercise of the judicial
office, was held to exempt them from liability '^nly
when acting honAfide in cases in which, by mistake,
they acted without jurisdiction (b).

The Merchant Shipping Act, 1873, which enacted
that if, " in any case of collision," it was proved
that any of the regulations for preventing collisions
had been infringed, the ship which infringed them
should be deemed in fault, unless the circumstances
jnstified it, was held to apply only to cases where
the infringement could have contributed to the
ooUision, but not where it could not possibly have
done so{c); just as an \ct{rf) which imposed a
penalty for piloting a ship down the Thames
without license, was evidently limited to piloting

' (o) 56 & 57 Viot. 0. 61 ; Bottocl v. Samtty V. D. C, [1900]
2 Q. B. 616. As to sllocation of oostg between parties, see
Smilk V. NorOUach Rural Dwtrict Council, [1C09] 1 Ch. 197 ; 71
L. J. Ch. R.

(h) 21 Gea III. c. 70 ; repealed by 5 & 6 Geo. V. o. 61 ;
Oalder v. HaUul, 3 Moo. P. C. 28.

(c) 36 4 37 Viot. c. 85, s. 17, repealed by s. 419 (4), Merchant
Shipping Act, 1894. 27ie Englithman, 3 P. D. 18; The Magnet,
li. R. 4 A. & E. 417 ; The Fanny Oanill (1875), 13 App. Cas.
455 n. ; approved in The Duke of Bucdeuch, [1891] A. C. 310.

(d) 5 Geo. II. 0. 20; repealed S. L. &., 1867; 57 & 58 Viot.
e. cUxxvii. is the present Thames Conservancy Act.

3«0

INTKRPBBTATION Or HTATUTRS.

ou a voyage, and woald not apply to a person iu
charge of a ship when merely warping from ouo
wharf to another to unload the cargo (n). Au
imperative requirement that ABsessment Sessions
should be held so that all appeals should be deter-
mined before a certain date would not operate bo
unjustly as to deprive a person of the right of
appeal where, through press of business at the
sessions, his appeal could not be heard before that
date (4). Sec. 100 of 25 & 25 Vict. c. 1(I2(.),
which provided that no writ or process should issiiu
for anything done under it bat after a mouth's
notice, would not apply to summary relief by
injunction ; for if it did, the wrong might be irre-
mediable, which could not be intended {d). Be-
sides, the object of the provision was only to give
the defendant time to make amends before he vrn.
sued (<;)■ Nor would a similar enactment that
" no action " should be brought in which a certain
body of shipowners would be hable for any damage
to any ship, without a month's notice, apply to
proceedings in rem in the Admiralty Division, for

(o) R. V. Laiabe, 5 T. R. 76.

(i) 32 & 33 Viot. c. 67 ; B. v. London Jui. ami L. C. C. 1893 :
2 Q. B. 476.

(c) Repealed by 56 & 57 Viot. o. 61

(d) X.-Gf. V. Haekneg Board (1875), L. R. 20 Eq. 626.

(e) Flmer v. Low Leyton, 6 Ch. D. 347. See also Foot v.
Mayor of Margate, 11 Q. B. D. 299

INJUBTIOB AND AB8UB0ITY AVOIOKK

361

if auoh a notice were necessary the prooeedings
might be fatile, as the ship might sail away before
the expiration of the mouth and avoid seizure (a).
Sec. C, 12 & 13 Vict. o. 02 (6), which requires
" every person " who impounds an animal, or
oauses it to be impounded or confined, to supply it
with food, would not apply to the keeper of the
pound (c).

The enactment in the Licensing Act, 1872, that
" every person found drunk on licensed premises "
should be liable to a penalty, though literally wide
enough to include the publican who had got drunk
anywhere and was found in that condition in his
bed after the house was closed, would be construed,
according to the manifest object of the Act, as
confined to persons found on the premises while
Dsing it as a house for public resort {d).

A statute which enacts that a person who has
been convicted by justices of an assault, and has
Buffered uhe punishment awarded for it, shall be

(n) 6 & 7 Will. IV. oh. 0. (local and personal), 8. 8 ; The
Lmsford, U P. D. 34.

(I) Repealed and re-enaoted by 1 & 2 Geo. V. o. 27, s. 7.

(c) Dargan v. Daciet, 46 L. J. M. C. 122.

((() 35 * 36 Vict. c. 94, s. 12 ; repealed Licensing Act, 1910 ;
see 8. 75 ; Letter v. Torretu, 2 Q. B. D. 403 ; B. v. Pelln, [1897]
2 Q. B. 33. See Warden v. Ti/e, 2 C. P. D. 74. Comp. Patlea v.
Bi^iiier, sup. p. 350. For other illustrations, see Anekelill v.
Baijll,, 52 L. .1. Q. B. 104 ; B. v. Kent Jiu., 24 Q. B. D. 181.

'JIBil

382

INTEBPBKTATION OF BTATDTKS.

released from all other prooeediDgs " for the same
cause," would not be construed as exempting him
from prosecution for manslaughter, if the party
assaulted afterwards died from the effects of the
assault ; such a construction would defeat the
ends of justice (a). An Act (6) which imposed a
penalty on any sheriff or baUiff who carried a
person arrested for debt to prison for twenty-four
hours, though it might render the former liable
for the act rf the latter, his servant, as well as for
his own, v/ould not be construed to admit of his
being sued, after the penalty had been recovered
from the bailiff; for this would be to give the
plaintiff a second penalty for the same act, after
he had been compensated by the first ; and wonld,
indeed, make the bailiff liable to pay twice, as he
would be bound by the usual bond to indemnify
the sheriff(c).

The same argument applies where the conse-
quence of adopting one of two interpretations
would be to lead to an absurdity. Thus s. 3 (uow
repealed) of the Newspaper Libel and Eegistration

(o) B. T. Morrit (1867), 36 L. J. M. C. 84. See Seed v. N^tl,
59 L. J. Q. B. 311 ! per Hawkins J., B. v. Jlft7«» (1890), 69 L. J.
M. C. 56 ; see also Mmper v. Broum, 45 L. J. C. P. 203.

(b) 32 Geo. 11. o. 28, s. 1, repealed and re-enacted by 50 S:
51 Viot c. 55. See ss. 14 and 39.

(c) Pukall V. Layton, 2 T. B. 712. See Wright v. Lomhn
General Omnihm Co., 2 Q. B. D. 271.

:ti-

UIJUBTIOK AND ABSURDITY ATOIOGD.

363

Act, 1881, which enacted that no Criminal Prose-
cution should be commenced against a news-
paper for Ubel without the fiat of the Director
of Public Prosecutions, was held not to apply to
a Criminal Information ; for to hold otherwise
would lead to the absurd and scandalous result
that that officer, who was to act under the
superintendence, of the Attorney-General, might
not only overrule the latter, but also the Queen's
i.ienoh Division, in the exercise of their power
to give leave to file such information (a). The
provision of s. 54, Public Health Act, 1875,
that where a local authority " supply water "
within their district, they shall have certain
powers as to carrjdng mains within and without
that district, is not to be construed in its literal
sense so as to involve the absurdity of requiring
that the authority must have begun actually to
supply some water before it can take advantage
of the powers conferred, but is to be understood
as conferring those powers upon the local authority
as soon as it undertakes to supply water under the
provisions of the Act (h). Similarly, a sewer made

')|

m

(a) 44 & 45 Vict. o. 60 ; see SI & 52 Vict. c. 64, ss. 2-4 ;
Yates V. B., 14 Q. B. D. 648 ; and as to the protection afforded
by B. 4 of the Law of Libel (Amendment) Act, 1888, see
Sharman v. Merritt (1916), 32 T. L. B. 360.

(i) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 55 ; Jona v. Conway Water Supply, [1893]
2 Ch. 603.

364

INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

by a landowner for the sole purpose of draiuing
houses erected by him on his own land, is not by
reason of its enhancing the value of the houses
"made for his own profit," within the meaning
of the exception in s. 13, Public Health Act, 1875°
so as not to vest in and be under the control of
the local authority. It would be absurd to sup-
pose that it was intended that the operation of
s. 13, the whole object of which is to vest sewers
in the local authority, should be thus practically
reduced to a nullity (a).

A repealed Act (5 & 6 Vict. c. 39, s. 6) (6) which
protected a fraudulent agent from conviction, i:
he "disclosed" his oflFence on oath, in any ex-
amination in bankruptcy, was held not to include
a confession made there after commitment by a
magistrate, and which was in substance only a
repetition of the facts proved before the latter;
on the ground that it would have been absurd
and mischievous to enable a man to provide an
indemnity for himself, by simply making a state-
ment of facts afready known and provable aliunde,

(o) 38 & 39 Vict. 0. 55; Ferrand v. BaUae Land Co., [1893]
a Q. B. 135 J Towle, v. Colmer (1895), 64 L. J. Ch. 4U; Croj,-
dale V. Sunburg <ic. Urban Council (1898), 67 L. J. Ch. 585.
Comp. Minehead Local Bd. v. LMreU, [1894] 2 Ch. 17S;
Syhet V. Soaaiy U. D. C, [1900] 1 Q. B. 584.

(6) For existing law, see 52 & 53 Viot. o. 45 (The Factors
Act, 1889).

INJUSTICE AND ABBUBDITT AVOIDED.

365

and not in any way advancing either civil or
criminal justice by the alleged " disclosure " («).

Although there is no positive rule of law against
a retrospective rate (b), enactments which authorise
the imposition of rates and similar burdens on the
inhabitants of a locality have been repeatedly held
not to authorise, without express words, a retro-
spective charge; on the ground of the injustice
of throwing on one set of persons a burden which
ought to have been borne by another at a former
period (c). And where the Act (rf) makes the occu-
pier rateable at what a tenant from year to year
would give for it, it would be understood, where
the property was subject by law to restrictions

(«) B. V. Skeen, 28 L. J. M. C. 91 ; so held by nine judges
against five. See Lewet v. Bamett, 6 Ch. D. 252.

(V) See Barriton v. Siickney (1847), 2 H. L. Cas. 108 ; B. v.
Bead, 18 h. J. M. C. 164 ; Joneg v. Jolituon, 21 L. J. M. C. 102 ;
B. V. Maitltnihead,9 Q. B. D. 494 ; CuUtor v. N. KeUey, 59 L. J. M. C.
102; E<ulm !,■ Co. v. Nar Valley Drainage Com. (1892), 8
T. L. R. 649 ; B. v. Leigh Bural Counal (1898), 67 L. J. Q. B.
562, C. A. ; but see B. v. All Sainit, Wigan (1874), L. E. 9 Q. B.,
at p. 327 ; affirmed (1876), 1 App. Cas. 611.

(o) Taumy's Case, 2 Salk. 531 ; Newtm v. Toung, 1 B. & P. N. R.
187 ; B. V. Mttulden, 32 R. R. 344 ; B. v. Dunley, 5 A. & B.
10; Waddington v. London Union, 28 L. J. M. C. 113 ; B. v.
Siretjield, 32 L. J. M. C. 236; Bradford Union v. WilU, L. R. 3
Q. B. 604 ; B. V. All Sainlt, Wigan, 1 App. Cas. 611. See also
B. V. Leigh B. D. C, [1898] 1 Q. B. 836.

(d) Repealed and re-enacted by 38 & 39 Viot. o. 55, s. 343,
Sched. v., Pt. III.

886 INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

which prevented the oooapier from obtainiog the
full value, that the hypothetical tenant was
similarly subject to them (a).

An Act which prohibits the negligent use of
furnaces in such a manner as not to make them
consume smoke " as far as possible," means only
BO far as the smoke can be consumed consistently
with the due carrying on of the business for whicli
the furnace is used, and not as far as it is
physically possible to consume it, without regard
to the detriment which the business carried on
would BufiEer; the Act not having expressed any
intention to interfere with it (6). Where a sewer
in a street (not being a highway repairable by the
inhabitants at large) has become vested in an
urban authority under s. 13, Public Health Act,
1875, the powers of the authority under s. 150
of that Act, where such street is not sewered to
their satisfaction, to require the frontagers to
sewer it, can be exercised by the authority once
only, and must be exercised within a reasonable
time after the sewer has become vested in them,
it being said that any other construction would
make the Act unjust and unreasonable (c). The

(o) Woreeiter v. Droilmek (1876), ia Ex. D. 49.

(6) Choper v. Woolley (1867), L. R. 2 Ex. 88.

(c) 38 & 39 Viot. 0. 55 ; Bonettn v. Ttticteniam Loe. Bd. (1887),
20 Q. B. D. 63 ; Fmand v. Ballat Land and Building Co. (1893),
62 L. .T. Q, B, 479. But a local authority under s. 105 of the

INJUSTICE AND AB8UBDITY AVOIDGa

367

Carriers Act, 1830 (11 Geo. IV. & 1 Will. IV.
c. 68), which exempts carriers from responsibility
for the loss of certain articles worth more than
£10, unless their nature and value are declared,
also enacts that the Act shall not affect any
special contract of carriage, and this proviso was
oonstmed, not literally as making the Act in-
applicable whenever any special contract was
made, but only as not affecting any special con-
tract inconsistent with the exemption provided by
the Act (a). The ordinary stipulation in a bUl
of lading, excepting liability for breakage, leakage
and damage, would be similarly limited in con-
Btraction, as not extending to any such injury
caused by the shipowner or his servants (6). So

Metropolis Management Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 120), can
teoover the cost of paving a new street from the frontagers, in
spite of the lapse of time since the road became a new st et ;
Simmtmds V. Ftdham Vestry, [1900] 2 Q. B. 188. See also St.
Oihi, Camberwell V. Hunt <1887), 56 L. J. M. C. 65, but as to
what constitutes a new street, see Wfiile v. FMam Vestry (1896),
74 L. T. 425, and see also Wandtaorth v. Golds (1910), 80
L. J. K. B. 126.

(o) Baxendale v. G. E. By. Co. (1869), L. R. 4 Q. B. 244. As
to the nature of evidence required by a carrier to bring him
within the protection of the Act, see L. & N. W. By. v. J. P.
Athlon, [1919] W. N. 234 ; and see as to " insurance " and
"special contract," Doey v. L. ,f N. W. By. Co., [1919] 1 K. B.
623. For a disquisition on the liability of carriers under this
Act, see Ghitty on Contnots, Chap. XV., s. 2.

(l) Phittijx V. Clari, i5 L.J. C. P. 168 ; Ozeek v. Gen. Steam

I

S''

868

INTEBPRETATION OF STATUTES.

the clause in a bill of lading of goods from Malana
to Liverpool authorising the ship to call at " aoy
port or ports, in any rotation, in the Mediterraueau,
Levant, Black Sea, or Adriatic ; or on the coasts
of Africa, Spain, Portugal, France, Great Britain,
and Ireland, for any purpose," would be limited
to ports in geographical order which were sub-
stantially on the course of the voyage (a).

It is to be borne in mind that the injustice and
hardship 'vhich the Legislature is presumed not
to intend is not merely such as may occur in
individual and exceptional cases only. Laws are
made ad ea qua frequentius acddunt (A) ; and
individual hardship not unfrequently results from
enactments of general advantage. The argument
of hardship has been said to be always a dangerous
one to listen to (c). It is apt to introduce bad
law (d) ; and has occasionally led to the erroneous

Nm. Co., L. E. 3 C. v. li ; per Lindley L.J., Chartered Bank of
India v. Netherlands Steam Nav. Co., 52 L. J. Q. B. 230. See
also The Pearlmoor, [1904] P. 286.

(o) Glgnn V. Margetton, [1893] 62 L. J. Q. B. 466 ; Wink v.
Granada S.S. Co. (1896), 13 T. L. E. 1. As to the use of words
" in any order " in bill of lading, see Hadji Ali Akbar v. Augh
Arabian Pernan 8.S. Co. (1906), 11 Comm. Cas. 219.

(b) Dig. 1. 9. 3-10.

(c) Per Cur., Munro v. Butt, 8 E. & B. 754.

(d) Per EoUe B., Winterliottom v. Wright, 10 M. & W. 116;
Brand v. Bammertmith S. Co., L. E. 2 Q. B. 241 ; A'lam v.
Graham, 33 L. .T. Q. B. 71.

iii

AGAINST IMPAIHINO OBLIOATIONB. 869

interpretation of statutes (a). Court ought not
to be influenced or governed by any notions of
hardship (i). They must look hardships in the
face rather than break down the rules of law (c) ;
and if, in all cases of ordinary occurrence, the
law, in its natural construction, is not inconsistent,
or unreasonable, or unjust, that oonstruoHon is not
to be departed from merely because it may operate
with hardship or injustice in some particular
case {d).

BBOTION m. — OONSTBUCTION AGAINST IMPAIBING OBLI-
GATIONS, OB PBMHTTniO ADVANTAGE FBOM ONE's
OWN WBONO.

On the general principle of avoiding injustice,
and absurdity, any construction would, if possible,
be rejected (unless the policy and object of the Act

(o) Oomp. ex. gr., Perry v. SUntier, 3 M. & W. 471, with B.
V. KB, 20 L. J. C. P. 16 ; and B. v. Shiht, 1 Q. B. 919, and Wdek
V. NoA, 9 B. B. 478, with B. v. PJaUipt (1866), 36 L. J. M. 0.
217. See Be Palmer's Trade Mark (1882), 21 Ch. D. 47.

(6) Per Lord Abinger, Rhodet v. Smelhurtt, 4 M. & W. 63 ;
wr Lord Esher M.B., Be PerUnt, 34 Q. B. D. 618.

(c) Per Lord Eldon, Berkeley Peerage, 4 Gamp. 419, and in
Jewon V. Wrigkt, 2 BUgh, 55 ; per Jessel M:.B., Ford v. Ketlle,
9 Q. B. D. 139, and Kirk v. Todd, 21 Ch. D. 484.

(d) See Co. Litt. 97b, 152b ; per Parke B., Mitter v. Salonwru,
21 h. J. Ex. 192, and Waiiatat v. Boberls, 7 Ex. 628; per Lord
Blaokbom, Toung v. Leammgkm {Mayor), 8 App. Gas. 627, and
piT liiftdley L.J., S.C, 51 L. J. Q. B. 297.

1.8. 34

S70

INTBBPBETATION OF BTATUTES.

required it) which enabled a person to defeat or
impair the obligation of his contract by his own
act, or otherwise to profit by his own wrong ; " a
man may not take advantage of his own wrong;
he may not plead, in his own interest, a self-
created necessity " (a). Thus, an Act which
aathorised justices to discharge an apprentice
under certain clrcamstances, from his indentnre,
" on the master's appearance " before them, would
justify a discharge in his wilful absence. The
Act, it was observed, must have a reasonable con-
struction, so as not to permit the master to take
advantage of his own obstinacy. It would be very
hard that, supposing the master was profligate
and ran away, the apprentice should never be dis-
charged (b). For similar reasons, an Act (30 & 31
Vict. c. 84) which authorised a justice to sammon
a parent " to appear with his child " before him,
for breach of the Vaccination Act of 1867, and
" upon Lis appearance," to order the vaccination
of the child, if he should find that it had not
already undergone that operation, was held to
authorise such an order without the appearance of
the child, when the parent reinsed to produce it.
A literal construction, making the production of

(a) Per Fletoher Moalton LJ., Kith v. Taylor, 80 L. J. E. B.
607.

(t) Ditton't Cow, 2 Balk. 490. See Gordon v.O.W.R.,SQ. B. D.
44. Comp. B. V. Bucki. and B. v. Sia£urdMre, sup. p. IS.

AOAINBT MPAIBIKO OBLIOATIONB.

371

the ohild a condition precedent to the making of
the order, would have involved the supposition
that the Legislatare had intended to ^ow the
parent to defeat its object by disobeying the snm-
fflons which it had ordered (a). So, a parent who
Mut his ohild to the Board School without also
Bending the school fees did not " cause the child to
attend the school " within the meaning of the Ele-
mentary Education Act, 1870, s. 74 (b). A trustee
in bankruptcy who has received a sum, would be
liable to arrest under the provision of the Debtors
Act, 1869, which makes a trustee liable to im-
prisonment for disobeying an order to pay a sum
" in his possession or his control," though in fact
he had spent it all (c). The provision of the Beal
Property Limitation Act, 1874, that no action

(a) Dulkm v. Aikini (1871), L. B. 6 Q. B. 373 ; B. v. Juiliea
of CinjiM Porto, 17 Q. B. D. 191. Om^. Banardo v. Ford,
[1893] A. C. 326.^ For exemption from penalties in oaee of
parentB' oonaoientions belief, see Vaooination Act, 1907 (7 Bdw.
VII. 0. 31, e. 1 11)).

(6) 33 & 34 Viot 0. 75 ; Lcmdm School Board v. Wright, 12
q. B. D. 578 ; see also Id. v. Wood, 15 Q. B. D. 415. The obUga-
Bon of payment under the Act of 1870 is avoided, in certain
oases, by 39 & 40 Viot. c. 79, s. 10.

(c) 32 & 33 Viot. 0. 62, s. 4 ; MiddUton v. OUehetter (1871),
li. R. 6 Oh. 152. See Leaei v. Bamett, 6 Ch. D. 252. The
Debtors Act, 1878, by s. 1, gives a Court or Judge discretion to
grant or refuse a writ of attachment under s. 4 of the earlier

™^B!

S72

INTntPRCTATION Or BTATOTES.

shoold be brought to reoover certain rams of
money but within 12 years next after " a present
right to receive the same" shall have aooraed
to some person capable of giving a discharge for
it, must be taken in its ordinary sense, and is not
to be interpreted as referring to " a present right
to sue for the same," which may be contiageDt
on the doing of some act by the person entitled
to receive the sum, and may be delayed by him
accordingly (a).

Although 9 Anne, c. 14, s. 1 (b), enacted that
bills and notes, founded on the consideration of
money lost at play, should be " utterly frustrate,
void, and of none effect, to all intents and purpose,"
its operation was confined to preventing the drawer
(or any person claiming under him (c)) from re-
covering from the loser ; but it left the instrumbut
unaffected in the hands of an innocent indorsee
for value suing the drawer (d). The statute was
construed as if the words were voidable agaiust
certain persons only, but were valid as regards

(o) 37 & 38 Viet. o. 57, s. 8 ; Honueg Loc. Bd. v. ilfoiinrc/i
Itti>M(ni«n< BUg. Soeg. (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 1 ; 59 L. J. Q. B.
106. See for discasaion on this case Owen, In re, [1894] 3 Ch.,
p. 225 ; 63 L. J. Ch. 749.

(b) Amended by 5 & 6 Will. IV. o. 41, ss. 1 and 3.

(c) Bowyer v. BampUm, 2 Stxa. 1165.

(d) Edwardt v. Dick, 23 B. B. 255.

AGAINST IHPAIBINO OBUOATlOm.

373

others, and this still represents the law in the case
of a bond fide holder without notice (a).

So, where an Act (b) provided that if the par-
chaser at an auction refused to pay the auction
duty, when this was made a condition of sale, his
bidding should be " null and void to all intents
and purposes," it was held that the object of the
enactment was completely attained by making the
t dding void only at the option of the seller ; thus
a oiding the injustice and impoUoy of enabling
a man to escape from the obligation of his con-
tract by his own wrongful act, which a literal
construction would have involved (c).

A special Aot((i) provided that a company
should not issne any share, that no share shoold
vest, until one-Afth of its amount was paid up, and
that the shareholder who had not paid up one-fifth

(o) Per Ova., Hay v. Afiitig (1861), 20 L. J. Q. B. 171,
p. 171. See also Tfooi/ v. HanuUon, [1898] 2 Q. B. 337, 0. A.

(i>) 17 Geo. in. c. 60, s. 8 (repealed 33 & 34 Viot. c. 9).

(e) JHoItM V. Freeman (1838), 7 L. J. C. P. 212. So, thenatul
atlpnlation in a lease that if any ooveoar' is broicen by the
leasee, the lease shall be void, is constrnea as voidable only at
the option of the lessor. The literal ooustraction would enable
a lessee to get rid of an onerous lease by wilfully breaking a
covenant in it. Comf. Biekard v. Orahani, 79 'i. 3. Gh. 378 ;
Doe V. Bancke, 4 B. & Aid. 401 ; Bede v. Farr, 18 B. B. 329 ; and
fer Lord Oaims, Magdalen noepital v. Knoltt, 4 App. Gas. 332.

(d) Inoorporatiog certain sections of the Companies Glauses
Act, 1846.

Ill

m

IMTBBrRBTATION OF nATVTIB.

■hoald have no right of property in the iharei
allotted to him, or capacity to transfer them, was
considered as limited in its application to the
protection of the pablio. To oonstrae it as apply-
ing also to the benefit of the shareholder, would
have been to absolve him from liability to pay ap
calls until he had paid the requisite proportion ;
or, in other words, to enable him to profit by his
own de&olt ; a consequence too unjust and qu-
reaaonable to have been intended (a).

On similar grounds, probably, enactments which
avoid or abridge the effect of conveyances, con-
traots, and instruments, have generally received
a construction more compatible with the obvious
object and policy of the Legislature than with the
natural meaning of the language. Thus, the Act
of Will, in., which declares void all conveyances
of property, " in order to multiply voices," does
not apply where the vendor is not privy to the
illegal object (6), and even where there is privity
it is valid and e£Eeotual as between the parties to
it to pass the interest (c).

(a) Ea$i OlouetilerMre Bf. Co. T. Bariholometi, L. B. 3 Ex. IS ;
McEwm V. Weit London Wkanet <te. Co. (1871), L. B. 6 Ch.
668. Comp., however, B. v. St^ffonUhire, 8 B. B. 668 ; Mcllraith
V. DuiKn <lc. By. Co. (1871), L. E. 7 Oh., at p. 139, and Etp.
Parbury, SO L. J. Ch. 613.

(6) 7 4 8 Will. in. 0. 25, 8. 7 ; Manhatt v. fiowen, U L. J.
C. P. 129; Holland v. Bremner, 16 L. J. C. P. 133, sup. 165.

(«) PhittpoUt V. PW«po«. (1860), 20 L. J. C. P. 11.

AOAimT IMPAIBtKO OBUOATIOMt.

875

Though 13 Blia, o. 10, made "utterly void
■nd of none effect, to all intents, oonitraotioni and
purpose!," all leases by eoolesiastical persons and
bodies, other ^h-m for 21 years or three lives,
the prohibitoi! .j.-.^es have always been held valid
u against tio i- -^or, w iujh .i corporation sole, and
even wh'.i i oij -; ttion a . {regate with a head,
daring th Vie of da hem' ') ; probably on the
prinoipl ' .f n perir- .. v ppel by reason of a
personal ii km.- t iu tlie iidad of the corporation (ft).
Where, howev.r, luer- is ao head, the Act neces-
sarily reoeivaF !■ primary and natural meaning;
and the lease it> void ab initio (c) ; upon the ground
that if it did not make the lease altogether bad, it
would be altogether good (rf) ; which would be con-
trary to every possible construction of the Act.

An Act which required that indentures for
binding parish apprentices should be for the term
of seven years at least, declaring that otherwise
they should be " void to all intents and purposes,
and not available in any court or place for any
purpose whatever," was held, nevertheless, to

(o) Bithop of SatMurifs due, 10 Bep. 60b, Co. Litt. 4Sa ;
JMMoJn Cottege One, 3 Bep. 60a ; Bao. Ab. Leases (H). See also
Bo6erl* v. Botcy, 38 B. B. 348 ; Datmfort v. B., 3 App. Gas.

US.
(6) Per Lord Gftims, Magdden Hotp. v. KrtolU, 4 App. Caa.,

at p. 333.

[c) Id. 334.

(d) Per OresBweU J., Touvg v. Batiter, 26 L. J. Q. B. 17a

876

INTEBPBETAmON OF STATUTBS.

make an indenture for a shorter term only void-
able at the option of the master or apprentice ;
or at ril events to leave it so far vaUd that service
under it sufficed to gain a poor law settlement (a).
Though the Infants Belief Act, 1874, makes all
oontraotB for the supply to an infant of goods
which are not necessaries absolutely void, the
infant cannot recover the money he has paid for
them if he has used or consumed them (6).

3 Hen.: VII. c. 4(c), which declared that gifts
of goods and chattels in. trust for the donor and
in fraud of his creditors should be " void and
of none effect," was early held to be so only as
to those who were prejudiced by the gift, but
not as between the parties (rf). And 13 EUz. c. 5,
would not include a bond jide conveyance for
valuable consideration, though made with intent
to defeat an execution creditor (<;). Even as
regards the persons prejudiced, the transaction

(o) 6 EUz. 0. 4 (repealed |by 38 & 39 Vict. o. 86, s. 17' ;
B. V. St. NicMa,, 2 Stra. 1066, C». Temp. Hardw. 323 ; Gray V
CoofcroB, 16 East, IS ; B. v. St. Gregory, 2 A. & E. 107 ; (hU. v
Twguand, L. B. 2 H. L. 325; Burgen', Com, 15 Ch. D. 507.

(i>) 37 & 38 Viot. c. 62, a. 1 ; VtOentim v. Cattali, 24 Q. B. D. 166.

(») Bepealed as to E. by S. L. B., 1868, as to Ir., S. L (1)
B., 1872. ' \l

(d) Bidler V. P«»«er, Cro. Eliz. 291 ; B«,ey v. WMkum, 6
Q. B. 166 See Phittpottt v. PhittpotU, sup. p. 165.

(«) Wood V. Dixie, 68 B. B. 590; Dartill v. Terry. 30 L T
Ex. 365.

AOAINST mPAIBINO OBLIOATIONB.

377

is not void ipso facto, but only voidable at their
option (a). In the repealed s. 47 of the Bank-
ruptcy Act, 1883, which enacted that voluntary
settlements made by a person who became bank-
rapt within two years after should be void as
against the trustee in bankruptcy, "void" has
been held to mean " voidable," so that the title
of a purchaser from the donee for valuable con-
sideration in good faith before avoidance, could
not afterwards be defeated by the trustee (6).
Sec. 137 of the repealed Bankrupt Law Consoli-
dation Act, 1849 (c), which enacted that a judge's
order to enter up judgment, made against a trader
with his consent, should be "null and void to
all intents and purposes whatever," if not filed
as required by the Act, was construed as making
the judgment void only as against his assignees,
but not as against himself. A literal construction
would have enabled the trader to treat his creditor
who took out execution on the judgment to which
he had consented, as a trespasser (rf). So non-
compliance with the requirement of 3. 27, Debtors

(a) Note the aasen in Tmmg v. BiUiter, 6 E. & B. 1 8 H. L.
Cm. 683.

(b) 46 4 47 Viot. 0. 62 ; Brail, Be, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 ; Carter,
and Kenderdine, Be, 66 L. J. Oh. 408. As to existing law with
regard to fraadulent settlements, see Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 27.

(e) As to existing Bankruptoy Law, see 4 & S Geo. V. o. 59.
(d) Bryan v. Child, 82 R. B. 710 ; Orem v. Oray, 1 Dowl. 350.

878

INTERPBETATION OF BTATPTE8.

Act, 1869, that a judge's order for judgment
made by consent of the defendant in a personal
action shall be filed in the manner prescribed
within 21 days after the making thereof, " other-
wise the order and any ju^ment signed or
entered up thereon, and any execution issued
or taken out on such judgment shall be void "
only renders such an order and judgment void
as against the creditors of such defendant, and
not as against himself (a). On the same ground,
a section of an Act (i) which declared a warrant of
attorney under certain circumstances " void to all
intents and purposes," was held to mean only that
it was void against the assignees in bankruptcy of
the person who had given it ; although in another
section the warrant was declared to be "void
against the assignees " if not filed. The difference
in the language of the two sections was considered
by the majority of the Court as insnfSoient to
establish any substantial difference of intention,
when the consequence would be to enable a person
to defeat his own act (c).
Though the Sunday Observance Act, 1677, has

(o) 32 & 33 Viot. 0. 62; Gouan v. Wright, 18 Q. B. D. 201:
Oramhav v. Barrison, [1894] 1 Q. B. 79,

(6) 3 Geo. IV. 0. 39, s. 4. Cognovit aetimem ext. 6 & 7 Vict.
0. 66. Eepealed 32 & 33 Viot. o. 62, s. 28.

(c) Morrii v. Mellin (1827), 6 B. & C. 446; Bennell v. Daniel,
10 B. & C. 500. See Dmia v. Bryan (1827), 6 B. & C. 651.

AGAINST IMPAIRINO OBLIGATIONB.

IF

379

the effect of avoiding contracts made on Sunday
by and with tradesmen and other classes of
persons, in the course of their ordinary calling,
the invalidity affects only those persons who,
when contracting with them, knew their calling ;
but those who dealt with them in. ignorance of
it would be entitled to sue on the contract (a).

In all these cases the intention of the Legisla-
ture was considered as completely carried out by
the restricted scope given to its enactments. But
where, having regard to the general policy of the
Act as well as to the language and the structure
of the sentence, it would not have that effect, the
words abridging or avoiding the effect of instru-
ments, contracts, and dealings would receive their
primary and natural meaning. Thus, in the Bills
of Sale Act of 1854, assignments not registered
were null and void in the full and natural sense of
the words (b) ; and in the later Act of 1882, the
provifflon of s. 9, which avoids a bill of sale
unless made in accordance with the form in the
schedule, has been held to avoid it in toto, and not
merely as regards the personal chattels oomT^.Ised
in it ; so that a covenant contained ir. it for the
payment by the grantee of the principal and

(a) Eloxtomt v. Willianu, 27 B. E. 337. See also Drur^ v.
Defmtaine, X Taunt. 131

(6) See ex. gr., Biclmnh v. Jamea, 36 L. J. Q. B. 116. Comp.
Exp. Blaiberg, 52 L. J. Ci. 461.

880

INTERPRETATION OF 8TAT17TB8.

interest thereby seotired was said to be rendered
inoperative (a). So, in the case cited on tax earlier
page, where an Act recited the mischiefs occasioued
by binding parish apprentices without the sanction
of justices, and enacted thaij no indenture of such
apprenticeships should be valid unless approved
by two justices, under their hands and seals ; it
was held that an indenture, approved under hand
but not under seal, was absolutely void(i). The
same effect was given (in an action by the trustees
against their lessee for rent which had been made
payable to them) to a local Act which provided
that every lease of turnpike tolls should make the
rent payable to the treasurer, in default of which
it should be " null and void " (c).

It may, probably, be said that where a statute
not only declares a contract void, but imposes a
penalty for making it, it is not voidable merely {d).

(o) 45 & 46 Viot. 0. 43; Daviet v. Beei, 55 L. J. Q. B. 363.
But see HeidUne v. Simmotu (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 5, in which
it was held that where a bill is avoided under s. 8 for an untrue
statement as to ooasideration it does not necessarily avoid the
covenant to repay under s. 9. See also Brandon Hill v. Lane
(:S14), 69 S. J. 75 , [1915] 1 K. B. 280 ; Jtovard, In re. (1916),
68 . J. K. B. 393.

(b) B. v. Sloie Damerel, sup. p. 10. See also 25. v. Bawbergh,
a B. & C. 222.

(c) 3 Geo. IV. c. 126 ; Peane v. Morriee, 2 A. & B. 84. Comf.
Hodson V. Skarpe, 10 R. R. 324.

(d) Gye V. Fellon, 4 Taunt. 876.

'J^M^E^s^i

SETB08PECTIVE OPEBATION AB REQARDS BIORTB. 981

The penalty makes it illegal (a). In general, how-
evur, it wonld seem that where the enactment has
relation only to the benefit of particular persons,
the word "void" would be understood as "void-
able" only, at the election of the persans for
whose protection the enactment was made, and
who are capable of protecting themselves ; but
that when it relates to persons not capable of pro-
tecting themselves, or when it has some object of
public policy in view which requires the strict
construction, the word receives its natural fnU
force and effect (b).

SECTION IV. — BETBOSPECTrVE OPERATION. — 1. AS RE-
OARDS VESTED BIOHTS. — 2. AS REGARDS PBOOEDUBE.

Upon the presumption that the Legislature does
not intend what is unjust rests the leaning against
giving certain statutes a retrospective opera-
tion (c). Nova constitutio futuris formam imponere

(a) But this diBtinction must now be underslioad to apply
only to oases where the statute enacts that an agreement or
deed made in violation of its provisions shall be wholly void.
Per Gibbs CI., Doe v. Pileluirt (1815), 6 Taunt. 359, p. 369.

(h) See per Bayley .\.,B. v. Hipmell, 8 B. & C. 471. See also
Belham v. Oregg, 38 B. B. 449, and Siorie v. Winehttler, 19
L. .1. C. P. 217. See farther Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, and
Supp., tit. " Void," and see also Money Lenders Act, 1911,
and cases thereon, " Chitty on Contracts," Chap. XXII., s. 1.

(<•) 2 Inst. 292.

^i*lSM^:^.^^. -^

8tt

INTKBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

dOiet, non prmteritis. They are construed aa opera-
ting only in oases or on facts which come into
existence after the statutes were passed (a) unless
a retrospective effect be clearly intended. It is »
fundamental rule of English law that no statute
shaU be construed so as to have a retrospective
operation, unless such a construction appears very
clearly in the terms of the Act, or arises by neoes
saty and distinct implication (6) ; and the same
rule mvolves another and sub<»dinate rule to the
effect that a statute is not to be construed so as
to have a greater retrospective operation than its
language renders necessary (c). Even in constru-
mg a section which is to a certain extent retro-
spective, the maxim ought to be borne in mind as
applicable whenever the line is reached at which
the words of the section cease to be plain (rf)

For it is to be observed that the retrospective
effect of a statute may be partial in its operation.

(a) Per Brie C.J., Midkwl % a,, y. Pye, 10 C B N S
191; p^ Cookbnm C.J., B. y. Ip^h. 2 Q. B. D. m-'^r
PoUock OB.. Tou^ V. Hu,He.. 4 H. & N 76 ; Va^L^
Taylor. 4 E. & B. 910 ; To^ng v. Ada.», [1898] A C 4^9

(J) This statement of the fundamental rule was cited and
approved by Kennedy L.J., We,t v. G„,„„., [igni 2 Ch. 16,
aee farther, Smtth v. Callander, [1901] A. C. 297
(c) Per Lindley L.J., Lauri v. Senad, [1892] 3 Ch 421
id) P«. Bowen L.J., Seid v. Seid. 31 Ch. D. 409. See also

warn "■ "■ ''"■ ^"^"" - '-^- ^"- -'-

BOTBOSPBOTIVB OFBBATION A8 BBGABD8 BIGHTS. 883

Thus it has been said that s. 35, Divided Parishes
and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, which con-
tains a code of transmitted statns in relation to
poor-law settlement, is to be considered as fully
retrospective for all purposes, except only as
regards adjudications made before the commence-
ment of the Act ; so that for the purpose of
determining the settlement of children bom after
1876, it may be that their father's settlement is
governed by the section, even though his settle-
ment, for the purposes of his own removal, is not
affected by it (a).

It is chiefly where the enactment would pre-
judicially affect vested rights, or the legality
of past transactions, or impair contracts, that the
rule in question prevails. Every statute, it has
been said, which takes away or impairs vested
rights acquired under existing laws, or creates a
new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches
a new disability in respect of transactions or con-
siderations already past, must be presumed, out
of respect to the Legislature (A), to be intended
not to have a retrospective operation (c). Thus,

(o) 39 & 40 Vict. c. 61, s. 35 ; Balh v. Berwick, [1892] 1
Q. B. 731 ; and see also Paddington Union v. Weatmimter Union
:i915] 2 K. B. 644.

(i) Per Cbancellor Kent, Daah v. Van Kleek, 7 Johnson,
502, etc.

(<■) Ptr Story J, Socy. for Propag. uj Ootpel v. Wheeler, St

I

884

INTEBPBETATIOM OF BTATCTH.

the provision of the Statute of Frauds, that no
action should be brought to charge any person on
any agreement made in consideration of marriage,
unless the agreement were in writing, was held
not to apply to an agreement which had been made
before the Act was passed (a). The Charitable
Uses Act, 1736(A), in the same way, was held not
to apply to a devise made before it was enacted («).
And the Apportionment Act, 1870, which enacts
that after the passing of the Act, rents are to
be considered as accruing from day to day, like
interest, and to be apportionable in respect of
time accordingly, would seem not to apply to a
Will made before the Act, though the testator
died after it came into operation (d). The testator
was presumed to have in view the staiie of the

OallisOD, 139. See also per Chase G.J., Colder v. Bail, 3 Dallas,
390, oitod by WiUes J., PhiUipt v. Byre, L. E. 6 Q. B. 1, whore
the distinotioD between retrospeoUve and tx pott fcuilo legisla-
tion is indicated. See furttar, j «r Lopes IiJ., B» Pulbormgk
School Board EUcHon, [1894] 1 Q. B. 7S7.

(o) Cnimore v. Shuter, 2 Lev. 227, 2 Mod. 310; Aih v. AUy,
3 Swanst. 664. See also Doe v. Page, 13 L. J. Q. B. 153 ; floe
V. Bold, 11 Q. B. 127.

(b) 9 Geo. II. 0. 3e (repealed save part of B. 5 by 51 & 52
Vict. 0. 42, s. 13).

(e) A.-a. V. Lloyd, 3 Atk. 551 ; Askbumlmm v. Bradthan, 2
Atk. 36.

(d) Jonet V. Ogle, L. B. 8 Ch. 192, but see Capton v. Capton
(1874), 43 L. J. Ch. 677 ; Broumrigg v. Pike (1882), 51 h. J. P.
29 ; Oonilahlc v. ComtaUe (1879), 48 L. J. Ch. 621.

RBTB08PIOTIVB OPBBATIOJJ AS REOABD8 R10HT8. 385

law when he made his Will (a). The contrary
presumptioD that the testator who left his Will
unaltered after the Aot was passed, intended that
it should operate on the Will (A), would imply
that he knew that the law had been changed.
So, it was held that 8 & 0 Vict. c. 109, which
made all wagers void, and enacted that no action
should be brought or maintained for a wager,
applied only to wagers made after the Aot was
passed (c) ; the Oaming Aot, 1892, which prevents
a betting agent from recovering from his employer
sums paid for bets, was held not to prevent such
recovery where the sums had been paid before the
passing of the Aot (d) ; and the Kidnapping Aot
of 1872, which made it unlawful for a vessel to
carry native labourers of the Pacific Islands with-
out a license, did not apply to a voyage begun
before the Aot was passed {e). Where one of the
ingredients of an ofifenoe had been committed
after the passing of the Act which created the
offence, but before the Act came into operation,

(o) Be March, 27 Ch. D. 166; but see Be Bridget, [1894] 1
Ch. 297 ; and Be Llanover, [1903] 2 Ch. 330.

(ii) Per Jessel M.B., Hiulwh v. Pedley (1874), 19 Eq. 271.

(c) Mom V. Durdtm, 2 Ex. 22, on which see fer Buckley L.J.,
Wat V. Gaymu, ml. p. 393 ; PeUamberdant v. Thachoorteijdaiiii, 7
Moo. P. C. 239. See White, Mtp., 33 L. J. Bank. 22.

((i) 56 & 66 Viot. 0. 9 ; Knii/hl v. Lee, [1893] 1 Q. B. 41.

(«) 3fi & 36 Viot. c. 19 ; Burne v. Nowell (1880), 49 L. J Q B
468.

■ C

i.s.

25

886

INTERPRBTATION OF STATUTHL

the fact that the other ingredient* were committed
sabeeqaently did not make the offence one within
the Act (a). The Bills of Bale Act, 1882, wliioh
made void bills of sale not registered within seven
days of their execution, was held not to apply to
instruments executed before the Act came into
operation. Compliance, it is evident, would have
been impossible where the deed had been executed
more than seven days before the Act passed (A).
The 20 Vict. c. 19, which declared that extra-
parochial places should, for poor-law and other
purposes, be deemed parishes, was held not retro-
spective, so as to confer the status of irremovability
on a pauper who had resided iu such a place for
five years before the Act (f)-

The enactments of the Patents, Designsi, and
Trade Marks Acts, 1883, have been held not to
affect any patent granted before the conunence-
ment of the Act {d) ; and it has been decided that
the repealed International Copyright Act, 1B8G,

(a) 63 & 64 Viot c. 71, -i. 26 (repealed by 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59) ;
B. T. Griffith; [1891] 3 Q. B. 116. Ab to oSenoes under the
Bankruptcy Act, 1914, see Part VII. of the Act.

(/.) Hirlcim V. Darlou, 23 Ch. D. 690.

\c) B. V. St. Sepulchre, 28 L. J. M. C. 187 ; See also S. v.
Iptaich Union, 2 Q. B. D. 269 ; Sunderland v. Stutex, 8 Q. B. D.
99 ; Barton Begi» t. Liverpool, 3 Q. B, D. 296 ; Qardner T. L«cm,
3 App. Cas. 582.

(d) 46 A 47 Viot c. 67 ; Brandon, Be (1884), 9 App. Can. 589.
See also 7 Edw. VII. o. 29.

BrrBOSPBCTIVI OPIBATION Ag RKABM HIOHTB 887

wu not to be oonstnied bo bb to revive or re-create
a right which had expired before it was paBsed, or
takeaway from the public the right which they had
acquired under previous legislation (a). The
Married Women's Property Act, 1883, did not
entitle a plaintiff, who was suing a married woman
upon a promissory note made by her before the
passing of the Act, to have judgment against her
in such terms as to be available against separate
property to which she became entitled after the
date of the note (*). Nor did it operate upon
property falling into the possession of a married
woman after the passing of the Act to which she
had acquired a title before, so as to make it her
separate estate (c). Even a statute which confers
a benefit, such as abolishing a tax, would not be
construed retrospectively, to relieve the persons
already subject to the burden before it was
abolished. An Act passed in August, providing
that on all goods captured from the enemy, and
made prize of war, a deduction of one-third of

(a) 49 & 60 Viot. o. 33, 8. 6 ; Lauri v. Benad, [1892] 3 Ch.
402. The present law aa to "existing" and "substituted"
right is set out, s. 24, and Sohed. I. o( the OopyriBht Act
1911. *

(6) 45 & 46 Viot. e. 75, s. 1 (4); TunMl v. Forman, 15
Q. B. D. 234. This sub-seotion is repealed by 56 & 37 Vict.
0. 63, s. 4, which see as to oases of mere procedure under the
Act. See ial. p. 402.

(o) Beid V. Seid (1886), 81 Ch. D. 402.

I(l'

m

^l ,- 1

MICKOCOPV KBOIUTION TEST CHART

(ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2)

1.0

|rK i^

I.I

^ li£ 12.0

i£

,,.25

U 111.6

^ APPLIED IIVMUt Inc

.^^ 1653 East
^^Rk Rochester.

_^Sr^S (716) 2BS

Wain Street

Ntm Tort 14609 USA

- OMO - PHon«

- 5989 - To.

888

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

the ordinary duties should be made, was lield not
to apply where the prize with her cargo, though
condemned in September, had been brought into
port on June, when certain duties accrued due {a}.
The repealed Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act,
1849, which made a deed of arrangement (b) " now
or hereaftei- " entered into by a trader with six-
sevenths of his creditors binding on the non-exe-
cuting creditors, at the expiration of three months
after they " should have had " notice, was held to
apply only to deeds executed after the passing of
the Act (c). To apply such an enactment to past
transactions, even though the property had been .
completely distributed among the creditors who
had signed, would have been so unjust, that it was
expedient to seek any means of getting rid of the
apparent effect of the word "now," which was
accordingly understood as restricted to arrange-
ments not completed but yet binding in equity
at the time when the Act was passed. So, a
non-trader was held not liable to adjudication as

(a) Prince v. U. S., 2 Gallison, 204.

(ii) As to existing law, see Deeds of Arrangement Act, 1914
(4 & 5 Geo. V. 0. 47) ; as to the general principles of which,
see WlhoH, In re, [1916] 1 K. B. 382.

(c) 12 & 13 Vict. 0. 106 ; Waugh v. Middleton, 22 L. J. Ex.
Ill; Marsh v. Higgim, 19 L. J. C. P. 297; Larpent v. BiUi},
5 H. L. Gas. 481; Nobh v. Gadban, 5 H. L. Cas. 504; He
Phanix Bettemer Co., 45 L. J. Ch. 11. See also Seed V. Whjgim,
32 L. J. C. P. 131.

ft

BETKOSPECriVE OPEKATION AS RE0ABD8 BIOUTS. 389

a bankrupt in respect of a debt contracted before
the enactment, which first made non-traders liable
to the bankruptcy laws (a). The provisions of sa. 32
and 34, Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which are still in
force, and which provide that " where a debtor
is adjudged bankrupt" he shall be subject to
certain disqualifications, were held to disqualify
those persons only who were made bankrupt after
the passing of the Act (b).

Sec. 1, 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 88 (c), which
empowered a patentee, with the leave of the
Attorney-General, to enrol a disclaimer of any part
of his invention (d), and declared that such dis-
claimer should be deemed and taken to be part of
his patent and specification, was construed by the
Court of Exchequer as enacting that the disclaimer
should be so taken "from theno< "orth " ; the
interpolation being deemed justifiable to avoid the
apparent injustice of giving a retrospective effect
to the disclaimer, and making a man a trespasser
by relation («), But this construction was rejected

(o) Wittiamt v. Harding, L. E. 1 H. L. 9.
(6) 46 & 47 Vict. o. 52; PuOorough School Board Election, Be,
[1894] 1 Q. B. 725 ; Tkompion, In re (1919), 88 L. J, K. B. 646.

(c) For existing law, see 7 Edw. VII. o. 29 (The Patents and
Designs Act, 1907).

(d) For meaning of word " disclaimer," see Owen't Patent
h re (1898), 79 L. T. 458.

(e) Perry v. Skinner, 6 L. J. Ex. 124 ; and per Cresswell J.,
Slwhr V. Warner, 1 0. B. 167.

390

INTEBPRKTATION OF STATUTES.

by the Common Pleas, on the ground that the
enactment really worked no injastice in operating
retrospectively (a).

Sec. 1, Mercantile Law Amendment Act, IS'd
(repealed by s. 60, Sale of Goods Act, 1893), which
provided that no fi. fa. should prejudice the iitle to
goods of a bond jide purchaser for value, before
actual seizure under the writ, was held not to
apply where the writ had been delivered to the
sheriff before the Act was passed. As the execu-
tion creditor had the goods already bound by the
delivery of the writ, the statute, if retrospective,
would have divested him of a right which he had
acquired (6) ; and for the like reasons, s. 14G of
the (repealed) Bankruptcy Act, 1883, which enacted
that " the sheriff shall not under a writ of elegit
deliver the goods of a debtor, nor shall a writ of
elegit extend to goods," was held not to apply to a
case where the writ had been issued, and the
sheriff had taken possession before the Act came
into operation, although the issue and seizure were
after the passing of the Act, and the delivery after
it came into operation (c).

(a) B. V. Mill, 20 L. J. 0. P. 16.

(6) WilUanu v. Smitlt, 28 L. J. Ex. 286.

(c) 46 & 17 Vict. 0. 52, s. 146; Hong% v. Windm, 53 L. J.
Q. B. 165. As to duties of sheriff in regard to goods takeo in
execution under existing law, see Bankruptcy Act, 1914, s. 41.
See also Cmij d Soug, In re, [1916] 2 K. B. 497.

nUTKOSPKOTIVK .M'KH.VIt.-X A« HK(MKDR BIGHTS. 391

Sec. 14, Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 1850
which provides that a debtor shaU not lose the
benefit of certain Statutes of Limitation by his co-
debtor's payment of interest, or part payment of
the prmcipal, was held not to effect the efficacy of
such a payment made before the Act was passed (a).
A different decision would have deprived the
creditor of a right of action against one of his
debtors. The provision in s. 10 of the Judica-
ture Act, 1875, that in winding up companies
whose assets are insufficient, the bankruptcy rules
as to the rights of creditors and other matters
8haU apply, was held not to reach back to a
company already in liquidation when the Act was
passed (4).

And generaUy, " no rule of construction is more
firmly established than this : that a retrospective
operation is not to be given to a statute so as to
impau: an existing right or obligation, otherwise
than as regards matter of procedure, unless that
effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to
the language of the enactment. If the enact-
ment is expressed in language which is fairly
capable of either interpretation, it ought to be
construed as prospective only " (c).

(a) Jaeison v. Woolleij, Tl h. J. Q. B. 448.
(6) Be Saelie <fc Co. (1875), 1 Oh. D. 48.
^W Athhmney. In re, [1898] 2 Q. B.; Wright J., at pp. 351,

»»» INTKBPltETATION OK STATUTES.

Nor is a statute retrospective, iu the sense
under consideration, because a part of the requisites
for its action is drawn from a time antecedent to
its passing (a).

Sec. 5, Mercantile Law Amendment Act, 18.36,
which entitles a surety who pays the debt of his
principal, to an assignment of the securities for
it held by the creditor, would apply to the case
of a surety who had entered into the suretyship
before the Act, but had paid off the debt after it
came into operation (6). Sec. 2, Infants' Kehef
Act, 1874, which enacts that no action shall be
brought on a ratification, made after majority, of
a contract made during infancy, was held to apply
to ratifications of contracts made before the Act
was passed (c). The Court of Chancery, which
acquired jurisdiction, under the repealed s. 4
of 22 & 23 Vict. c. 35 {d), to relieve in respect of
the forfeiture of a lease in consequence of a breach
of a covenant to insure, exercised this now juris-
diction where the breach occurred after, but the
lease had been made before the Act was passed («).

(o) Per Lord Denman, B. v. Si. Mary, WHteehapel, 12 Q. B.
127 ; B. V. Chrislchurch, Id. 149. S<»» R. v. Porteea, 7 Q. B. D.
384 ; Sacp. Dawmn, L. R 19 Eq. 433.

(h) Be Wolf\. LMiell, 37 L. J. Ch. 293.

(c) Kime, Erp. (1875), 44 L. J. Bank. 63.

{<!) Et-enacted by a. 14, Oonveyancing Act, 1881 (44 & 45
Vict 0. 41).

(e) Page V. Bemeil (1855), 29 L. .1. Ch. 398.

KETBOSPUGTIVIS OPUUATION AS BKUABOS BI0HT8. 393

And the provision of the Conveyauoing Act of
1881, which reUeved tenants against forfeiture for
breach of covenant, was held to apply to a case
where judgment had been already given before the
Act was passed, and the landlord might have ob-
tained possession, but for a stay of proceedings to
give the tenant time to appeal (a). So, s. 3, Con-
veyancing and Law of Property Act, 1892, applies
to " all leases," whether executed before or after
the commencement of the Act ; and, in the
absence of express provision to the contrary,
engrafts, upon every covenant against assignment
or underletting without consent, a proviso that
no fine, or sum of money in the nature of a fine,
shall be payable in respect of such consent {b). So,
8. 8, Metropolitan Water Board (Charges) Act,
1907 (7 Edw. VII. o. CLXXI.), is retrospective in
removing from the Board the duty of providing,
laying down, and maintaining the water com-
munication pipe and imposing that duty on the
owner or occupier of the premises supplied with
water (c).

So, s. (j of the Married Women's Property
(Scotland) Act, 1881, applies to marriages entered

(a) 44 & 45 Viot. o. 41, 8.14 ; QuUter v. JIfqpfeson, 9 Q. B. D. 672.
(i>) Wett V. Oa^nne, [1911] 2 Oh. 1 ; 80 L. J. Ch. 578.
(i) Bait V. Metropolitan Water Board, [1911] 2 K. B. 965 ;
Mitt V. Metropotilan Water Board (1915), 84 L. J. K. B.

20il.

394

INTEBP KTATIO.N or HTATUTKH

into before the passing of that Act as well hs to
those contracted subsequently (a)

In general, when the law is altered pendinR an
action the rights of the parties „e dell 3
according to the law as it existed when the la
was begun unless the new statute shows at

^T^- *? r^ '"°^ "S'^*«- Thus, s. 32
he Medical Act, 21 & 22 Vict. c. 90, which a
amended by subsequent statutes, enacts tha'l
person shaU after the 1st of' January J
recover any charge for medical treatment " unless
he shaU prove at the trial" that he was o^
Medical Register, was held not to apply to an
action for medical services, begun before that date
but tried after it (A). An administration bond

the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 95, an action begun by the
assignee before that Act was passed, was held n
mamtamable after it came into operation (c)

If a statute is in iU nature a declaratory Act
the argument that it must not be construed so as
to take away previous rights is not applicable.
Ihus, a statute passed in 1889 declaring that the
provisions of a statute of 1881, with regard to the

(o) Pabnrum v. Poe (1883), 8 App. Cas. 678

Jd* 3^ w"o nT' '^ "" "'• ^"^ ''"' "^"0'" - «-«•

Q B. 22. -^^ ■^'"""" "■ ■^'^'''*- « ^- •'■

M Tottiiij V. Hiuiliiii, 4 H. it N. 76.

u

RETROsmTIVK OPKHATIOX AS nEOABDS K1GHT8. JOS

imposition of stamp duties upon personal property
passing under "voluntary settlements," should be
construed as if marriage settlements were included
though until then they had not been regarded as
voluntary settlements, resulted in a decision that
the provisions of the later Act were retrospeotivn
and that the construction provided by it must be
applied to the description of the property sought
to be taxed, and this although the property passed
to the beneficiaries, and proceedings to recover
the duty were taken, before the second Act came
into force (a).

It is hardly necessary to add, that whenever
the mtention is clear that the Act should have
a retrospective operation, it must unquestionably
be so construed (*), even though the consequences
may appear unjust and hard(c). Thus, an Act
(33 & 34 Vict. c. 29, s. 14) (d) which enacted that
every person "convicted of felony" should for
ever be disqualified from seUing spirits by retail,
and that if any such person should take out, or

(o) 44 & 45 Viot. 0. 12, b. 38. 82 & 63 Viot. c. 7 b U • ^ O
V. mobM (1890). 24 Q. B. D. 557; &„« v. Oraiy/ltepr^

('') See ex. gr. William, and Stepney, lie, [1891] 2 Q B 257
W See ex. gr. Simd v. Caren, U L. J. C. P. 177- Bell v

Billon, i Bing. 615.
{d) Repealed by 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V. c. 24 s 112

hclied. 7, and re-enacted by b. 35 of same Act.

89ti

INTKUPBKTATION OK STATUTES.

have taken out, a license for that purpose, it
should be void, was held to include a man who
had been convicted of felony before, and liad
obtained a licfise after the Act was passed.
Although the expression " convicted of felony "
might have been limited to persons who should
thereafter be convicted, yet, as the object of
the Act was to protect the public from having
beerhouses kept by men of bad character, the
language was construed in the sense which best
advanced the remedy and suppressed the mischief;
though giving, perhaps, a retrospective operation
to the enactment (a). The Summary Jurisdiction
(Married Women) Act, 1896, ». 4, which enacts
{inter aim) that "any married woman whose
husband shall have been guilty o' persistent
cruelty to her, and by such cruelty have caused
her to leave and live separately ar 1 apart from
him, may apply to any Court of summary juris-
diction for an order under the Act," is retro-
spective in its operation, and applies to acts of
cruelty committed before the Act came into

(o) Hitchmck V. Way, 45 E. B. 663 ; B. v. FiW, L. E. 10 Q. B.
195, diss. LuBh J., considered in Be PuOorough School Boar<l,
[1894] 1 Q. B. 725; Chappett v. Purday, 13 L. J. Ex. 7. .\
bare verdict of guilty without penalty constitutes a comiction,
B.v.£/a6y,[1894]2Q.B.170; 63 L. J. M. C. 133. Astotheeffect
of pardon in removing the disqualification, see Hay v. Torn' Ju.,
[1898] 24 Q, B. D. 561.

RETHOSPErTIVK OI'KUATinN AM REOARDB RKIIITS HS?

operation (a). After the p- sing of the Statute of
Frauds Amendment Act, 1828 (9 Geo. IV. c. 14),
which enacted that in actions grounded upon
simple contracts, no verbal promise should be
" deemed sufHcient evidence " of a new contract
to bar the Statute of Limitation, it was held that
such a puraise given before the Act, and which
was then suilioient to bar the staUte, could not
be received in evidence in an action begun before,
but not tried till after the passing of the Act {/>).
This decision has been supported on the ground
that the time for deciding what is or is not
evidence, is when the trial takes place ; and that
when the Act told the judge what was and was
not then to be evidence, he was bound to decide
in obedience to it(c). But some stress is also to
be laid on the circumstance that the Act did not
come into optration untU eight months after its
passing ; for the concession of this interval seemed
to show that the hardship in question had been
in the contemplation of the Legislature, and had
been thus provided for(rf). So, an Act which was

(a) 58 & 59 Vict. c. 39 ; Lane v. Lme, [189G] P. loo : 05
L, J. P. 63.

(i) Billiard v. Lenard, Moo. & M. 297 ; Toaler v. ChaUerton
31 E. E. 411.

(c) Per Cresswell J., Marsh v. Elggina, 9 C. B. 551. But
mnp. sup. p. 394.

(d) Per Park J., 6 Bing. 264.

n!)8

[trrRRPKKTATION or HTATIITEH.

passed in August, but wag not to oome into opera-
tion till Ootober, making noU'traders liable to
bankruptcy, applied to a person who oontractf!'] n
debt and oommitted an act of bankruptcy betwi en
those dates. It was considered that no iujustico
was done, since the Act bad told him what wonlil
be the consequence of contracting the debt, before
he contracted it (a). On this ground, also, it was
held that s. 11, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43(A), which
limits the time for taking summary proceedin<;s
before justices to six months from the time when
the matter complained of arose, was held fatal to
proceeding!! begun after the passing of the Act iu
respect of a matter which had arisen more than
sis mouths before it was passed (c) ; though tlie
interval between the passing of the Act aud its
coming into operation was only six weeks. If the
Act had come into immediate operation, it was
observed, the hardship would have been so great,
that the inference might have been against au
intention to give it a retrospective operation ; but

(o) Rmhleigh, Exp. (1876), 2 Ch. D. 9 ; 45 L. J. Bk. 29, C. A.
Comp. Wittiamt v. Harding, (1866), L. B. 1 H. L. 9 ; 35 L J.
Bk. 25.

(6) Explained as to proceedings by Auditors, 12 & 13 Vict. c.
103, 8. 9.

(c) B. V. Leeda By. Co., 21 L. J. M. C. 193 (overruled on
another point in B. v. Edward; 53 L. .1. M. C. 149). See frr
Bovill C.J., Ingt v. London i- S. W. By. Co., L. R. 4 C. P. 19.

KKTBOwrKUTIVK OPEBATION AN HKOAKIW 11101H>.. a»9

tbe provision suspending its operation, for how-
ever short a time, was to be taken as an intimation
that the Legislature had provided it as the period
within which proceedings respecting antecedent
matters might be taken {a).

In the same way s. 10, Mercantile Law
Amendment Act, 1856(A), which enacted that no
person should be entitled to commence an action
after the time limited, by reason of his being
abroad or in prison, was lield to apply to causes
of action which had accrued before the Act was
passed. But some weight was due to the circum-
stance that another section of the same Act kept
alive in express terms a cause of action already
accrued, and thus afforded the inference that r.
such intention had been entertained, as none v, .
expressed, as regards oases under s. 10(«).

In both of the above cases, however, the con-
struction, though fatal to the enforcement of a
vested right, by shortening the time for enforcing
it, did not in terms take away any such right ; and
in both it seems to faU within the general principle
that the presumption against a retrospective con-
struction has no application to enactments which
affect only the procedure and practice of the

(a) Per Lord Campbell, B. v. Leedn By. Co., 18 Q B 346
(t) 19 & 20 Viot. 0. 97.

(.) Cor«m V. Hudm, (1857). 27 L. J. Q. B. 8; Pardo v Bina-
*«» (1869), 39 L. J. Oh. 170.

400

CJTBBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

Courts (o), even where the alteration which the
statute makes has been disadvantageous to one of
the parties. Although to make a law for punishing
that which, at the time when it was done, was not
punishable, is contrary to sound prmciple ; a law
which merely alters the procedure may, with perfect
propriety, he made applicable to past as well as
future transactions (b) ; and no secondary meaning
is to be sought for an enactment of such a kind.
No person has a vested right in any course of
procedure (c). He has only the right of prosecution
or defence in the manner prescribed for the time
being, by or for the Court in which he sues ; and
if an A.ct of Parliament alters that mode of pro-
cedure, he has no other right than to proceed
according to the altered mode(rf). The remedy
does not alter the contract or the tort; it takes
away no vested right, for the defaulter can have
no vested right in a state of the law which left the
injured party without, or with only a defective,
remedy. If the time for pleading were shortened,
or new powers of amending were given, it would

(a) Wright V. Bale (1860), 30 L. J. Ex. 40 ; The Ydm, [1899]
P. 236; A.-a. V. Theobald (1890), 24 Q. B. D. 557, at p. 560.

(6) Maoavday'B Hiat. Eng., vol. iii. p. 715, and vol. v. p. 43.

(c) Pel Mellish L..I., Cotta Biea v. Erlanger, 3 Ch. D. 69.
See ex. gr. The Dnmfriet and other oases, sup. pp. 277, 279.

(A) See judgments of Wilde B., Wright v. Hale, 30 L. J. Ex. 43,
and of Loid Wensleydale, A.-G. v. Sillem, 10 H. L. Can. 704,
and per James L..T., Warner v. Murdoch, 4 Ch. D. 752.

BETBOSFEOnVK OFEBATION AS BEOABDS PBOGEDUBE. 401

not be open to the parties to gainsay such a change ;
the only light thus interfered with being that of
delaying or defeating jostioe ; a right little worthy
of respect (a).

The general principle, indeed, seems to be that
alterations in the procedure are always retrospec-
tive, unless there be some good reason against it (b).
Where, for instance, the defendant pleaded to an
action for a small sum, that the jurisdiction of the
Court had been taken away by a Court of Bequests
Act, and that Act was repealed after the plea but
before the trial ; it was held that the plaintiff was
entitled to judgment (c). When the Legislature
gave a new remedy by the Admiralty Acts of 1840
and 1861 (d), for enforcing rights in the Admiralty,
those Acts were held to extend to rights which
had acomed before the new remedy had been
provided («).

So, the provision of the repealed s. 128, Common
Law Procedure Act, 1852 (/), that the plaintiff

(a) See ax. gr. Comuh v. Hocking, 23 L. J. Q. B. 143 ; Dtuh v.
Van KItek, 7 Johns. 503 ; The People v. Tibbetti, i Cowen, 393.

(6) See per Lord Blaokbom, Oardner v. Lucaa, 3 App. Has.
603, and Kimbray v. Draper, L. B. 3 Q. B. 160.

(c) Warne V. Beretford, 6 L. J. Ex. 193.

(i) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 65, s. 6, and 34 & 35 Viot. c. 10, ss. 6, 35.

(e) The Akxander Lareen (1841), 1 Bob. W. 288. See The
Iromidet, 31 L. J. P. M. & A. 129.

{/) IS & 16 Viot. 0. 76 (B. 128 is repealed by 46 & 47 Viot.
0' 49, B. 3).

l.s. 26

402

IKTEEPBBTATION OF 8TATDTK8.

might issue execution within six years from the
recovery of a judgment, without revival of the
judgment, was held to apply to a judgment which
had been recovered more than a year and a day
before the Act was passed, and which therefore
could not have been put in force under the
previous state of the law without revival (a) ; and
the power given to a married woman by the
Married Women's Property Act, 1882, of suing
in all respects as if she were a feme sole, was held
to enable her to so sue in respect of torts or
breaches of contract committed before the passkg
of the Act (6). Sec. 37, Solicitors Act, 1843
(6 & 7 Vict. 0. 73) (c), which made solicitors' bills
taxable, for work done out of Court, and which
also provided that, from the passing of the Act,
no solicitor should bring an action for costs until
a month after he had delivered his bill, was held
to apply to costs incurred before the passing of
the Act (d).
On this principle, it was held that s. 31, 3 & 4

(a) Boodle v. Dams, 22 L. J. Ex. 69.

(b) 45 & 46 Vict. c. 75, s. 1 (2) ; Weldon v. WImhw, 13
Q. B. D. 784. See also Weldon v. De Bathe, 14 Q. B. D. 339;
Loae V. Fox, 15 Q. B. D. 667. Comj,. Lumleu, Re. 118911
3 Ch. 135.

(c) Last proviso of o. 37 is repealed by 38 & 39 Vict. c. 70, s. 2.

(d) Binm v. Bey. 13 L. J. Q. B. 28 ; Brooke v. £«fc((, 9
Q. B. 847 ; Scaddinji v. Eylee. Id. 858.

KETKOSPECTIVE OPERATION AS REGARDS PHOCEDUKE. 403

Will. IV. 0. 42 (a), which provides that in actions
brought by executors, the plaintiff shaU be liable
for costs, was applicable to an action begun before
the Act came into operation (6) ; and though Little-
dale J. (c),and afterwards Parke B. (d), disapproved
of the decision, it appears to have been generally
concurred in by the Courts (e). So, the Common
Law Procedure Act of 1860 (23 & 24 Vict. c. 12(),
8- 34) {/), which deprives a plaintiff, in an action for
a wrong, of costs, if he recovers by verdict less
than ^5, unless the judge certifies in his favour,
was held to apply to actions begun before the Act
had come into operation, but tried after (g) ; and
a similar effect was given to 30 & 31 Vict. c. 142,
as regards giving security for costs in the County
Courts (A). The provision which extended the
time for making decrees nisi absolute from three

(a) Sec. 31, repealed by 42 k 43 .ic:. o. 59, ooapled with 46 &
47 Viot. 0. 49, 8. 4 (with saving for local or personal actions).

(6) Freeman v. Moye», 1 A. & E. 338; Pickup y. Wharton 2
C. & M. 405; Grant v. Kemp, Id. 636; Exp. Bamon, L E
19 Eq. 433. . ■ ^.

(c) 1 A. & B. 341.

(<0 In Pinliom v. A'oiwfcr, 8 Ex. 138.

(c) Per Ohannell B., Wright v. Hah, 30 L. J. Ex. 43 • per
Wood V.-C, Be Lord, 1 K. & J. 90.

(/) Repealed by 30 & 31 Viot., Sohed. (C).

(y) Wright V. Bale (1860), 30 L. J. Ex. 40.

(/i) Kimbrug v. Draper (1868), L. B. 3 Q. B. 160- 37 L I
Q- K. 80. ....

If

ipJllS

4M

INTEBPBETATION OF BTATUTiS.

to six months, applied to suits pending when the
Act came into operation (a).

But a new procedure would be presumably
inapplicable, where its application would prejudice
rights established under the old (6) ; or would in-
Tolve a breach of faith between the parties. Fcr
this reason, those provisions of the repealed s. 32,
Common Law Procedure Act, 1854 (c), which
permitted error to be brought on a judgment upon
a special case, and gave an appeal upon a point
reserved at the trial, were held not to apply where
the special case was agreed to, and the point was
reserved, before the Act came into operation {d).

Where a special demurrer stood for argument
before the passing of the 2rst Common Law Pro-
cedure Act, it was held that the judgment was not
to be affected by that Act, which abolished special
demurrers, but must be governed by the earlier
law(«). The judgment was, in strictness, due
before the Act, and the delay of the Court ought
not to a£fect it.

In considering whether a statute was intended

(a) Walton v. Walton, 36 L. J. P. & M. 95.

(Ii) Phoenix Betaemtr Co., Exp., 45 L. J. Ch. 11.

(c) Bepealed by 46 & 47 Vict. c. 49, e. 3.

(d) Bitghet v. L«»%, 24 L. J. Q. B. 29 ; raniittart v. Tayfof,
4 E. & B. 910.

(e) Pin/iorn v. Soiater, 21 L. J. Ex. 336. See also R. v. Crown,
19 L. .1, M. C. 20 ; H<Aton v. Neale 22 L. J. Ex. 175.

,i

BETEOSPECrrVE OPKBATION AS REGARDS PROCEDURE. 405

to be retrospective in its operation, reference has
been made to prescribed forms appended to rules
made under the statute, and to the fact that their
being headed "the day of , 189 ,"

indicated that they were not intended to apply to
a period before 1890 (a).

(a) 53 & S4 Viot. c. 71, 8. 25; section repealed by 4 & S
Geo. V. 0. 47, and replaced by 8. 13 of that Act ; Norman, Be,
[1893] 2 Q. B. 369.

I MM- 1

CHAPTER IX.

SBOTION I.— MODIFICATION OP THE LANGUAGE TO MP.KT
THE INTENTION,

Where the language of a statute, in its ordinary
meaning and grammatical construction, leads tn
a manifest contradiction of the apparent purpose
of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or
absurdity h-rdship or injustice, presumably not in-
tended, a construction may be put upon it which
modifies the meaning of the words, and even the
structure of the sentence (a). This may bo done
by departing from the rules of grammar ; by giving
an unusual meaning to particular words ; by alter-
ing their collocation ; by rejecting them altogether ,
or by interpolating other words; under the in-
fluence, no djubt, of an irresistible conviction, that
the Legislature could not possibly have intended

(o) See per Alderson B., A.-G. v. Loekaood, 9 M. & W. 398,
and Miller v. Snlomom, 7 Ex. 475; per Lord Denman, J,M v.
Hull Dock Co.. 9 Q. B. 443; per Lord Campbell, Wigton v. S»M,
IG Q. B. 503 ; per Parke B., Beeke v. Smith, 2 M. & W. 195,
WrigM V. William,, 1 M. & W. 99, and nollingworth v. Pnhner,
18 L. ,1. Ex. 409, 414 ; per .Tames L.J., Baebleigh, Exp., 2 Cli. D.
n ; Grot, de B. & P. b. 2, c. 16. s. 12 (4). See also per counsel,
Cory V. Franee (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 346.

MODIFICATION OF THK LANOUAOB.

407

what its words signify, and that the modifioa-
tions thus made are mere corrections of careless
language, and really give the true meaning. Where
the main object and intention of a statute are
clear, it must not be reduced to a nullity by the
draftsman's unskilfulness or ignorance of the law,
except in a case of necessity, or the absolute in-
tractability of the language used (a). The rules of
grammar yield readily in such cases to those of
common sense.

In a case already mentioned where a Colonial
ordinance, passed to give effect to the treaty
between this country and China, authorised the
extradition to the Chinese Government of any of
its subjects charged with having committed '' any
crime or offence against the laws of China," the
Privy Council construed these words as limited to
those crimes and offences which are punishable by
the laws of all civilised nations ; and as not includ-
ing acts which, though against the laws of China,
would be innocent in Europe (5). As the literal
meaning of the words was wide enough to include
pohtical offences against the law of a foreign State,
an English Court might feel bound to think it
impossible that they could have been used in that
sense. But it might be doubted whether the other

(a) Salmon v. DuticonAe (1886), 11 App. Cas. 627 ; 55 L. J. P. C.
69; and see Bote v. Bo»e, [1897] 1 Ir. E. 9, at pp. 39-42.
(Ii) A.-O. V. Kmok-a-Sing, sup. p. 45.

408

1

)

* \:

1'

INTBHPBETATION OF STATCTBg.

party to the treaty andemtood onr stipTilation in
the same narrow sense; or. indeed, whether it a.d
not understand it as including, above all others
those onmes which all Governments are mZ
desirous to punish, viz., those against them-
selves («). Where the clearly expressed inteu Jn
of a Colonial ordinance was to give to any subject
of the Queen resident in the colony the power of
disposing by Will according to English law of
property both real and personal, which otherwise
would devolve according to the law of the colonv
and where a section of the ordinance was operative
for that puxpose, exor>pt that it concluded with
the pro^sion " as if such subject resided in Ens-
land the effect of which would be to leave both
the hx mtua and the le^ domieaH in operation, thw
reducing tue section to a nullity, it was held that
the concluding words ought not to be so construed
as to destroy aU that had gone before, and there-
fore should be treated as immaterial, the powers
conferred not being affected by the question of
residence in England (6). When it was settled
that the Limitation Act, 1623 (21 Jac. I c 16)
appUed to India (c), it was necessary to construe'
for that purpose, the expression "beyond the

(o) The same wide expressions are used in the 34 & 35 Viot
0. 8, and in the 37 & 38 Viot. o. 38.
(6) Salmon v. Dunco,,^ (1886), 11 App. Cas. 627.
(<:» Eart India Co. v. Paul, 7 Moo. P. 0. 8S.

MODinCATION OF THE LAKOVAOK.

409

seas," as meaning out of the territorieB (a). The
same statate, which, after limiting the time for
gning, gave a farther period to persons ahroad
"after they retnmed," was construed as giving
that extended time to the executor of a person
who never returned, but died abroad (6). In the
provision of s. 6, Arbitration Act, 1889, that where
a submission provides that the reference shall be
to a single arbitrator, and all parties do not concur
in the appointment of rn arbitrator, any party may
serve the other parties with a written notice to
" appoint " an arbitrator, " appoint " must be read
as " concur in appointing," as it could not be sup-
posed that the intention was that the party who
would not concur in an appointment should have
the appointment in his own hands (c).

An Act which made it penal " to be in possession
of game after the last day " allowed for shooting,
would, if construed literally, include cases where
the possession had begun before the last day, and
therefore lawfully ; and to avoid this injustice, it
was construed as applying only where the possession
did not begin until after the close of the season ;
that is, the words "to begin" were interpolated

iJ

n^'l

'J!

(a) Suckmabcye V. Lulloobhot/, 8 Moo. F. G. 4.

(b) Tomtend v. Deacon, 18 L. J. Ex. 298. See also Forlia v.
Smith, 24 h. J. Ex. 299.

((•) 52 & 53 Viot. c. 49; Eyre and Leketter Corp., Se, [1892]
1 Q. B. 136, inf. p. 428.

410

IXTieBPBETATION OF 8TATUTBS.

before "to be in poBsesaion " (a). Under the
Factory and Workshop Act, 1895, which prohibited
the n8e of an underground bakehouse unless it
was " so used at the commencement of the Act "
it was held that an old-established bakehouRe
which was vacant at the commencement of the
Act, but whose owner was seeking a tenant was
within the exemption (A). When one section
enacted that if the plaintiff recovered a sum '•not
exceeding" ,£5 he should have no costs, and
another, that if he recovered "less than" i",
and the judge certified, he should have his costs •'
the literal meaning of the last clause leaving it
inoperative where the sum recovered was exactly
^5, it was held, to avoid imputing so incongruous
and improbable an intention to the Legislature
that the words "less than," should be read as
equivalent to "not exceeding," the general principle
being that " Acts of ParUament should be construed
with a candid mind and with an intention to under-
stand them "(c). Sec. 32, 7 Geo. IV. c. 57 (rf),

(fl) 2 Goo. III. 0. 19, 39 Geo. III. o. 34; both Acts repealod
M to England by 1 & 2 WUl. IV. o. 32, b. 1 ; Simjmm v. V,„rh,
37 E. K. 359.

(/.) 58 & 59 Viot. 0. 37, s. 27 (3), repealed and replaced by
8. 101 (1), Factory and Workshop Act, 1901; Sohmrzerhof v
Wilkim, [1898] 1 Q. B. 640.

(c) Oarbf v. Harrit (1852), 21 L. J. Ex. 160.

(<J) Bopealed S. L. B., 1873.

^'3

UlHUnCATION OP THE LANUUAOK.

411

which invalidated voluntary oonveyanoes made by
ingolvents " within three months before the oom-
menoement of the imprisonmeut," which, literally,
would exolade the time of imprisonr 'nt, was oon-
Btmed as if the words had been " v.ithin a period
oommenoiug three months before the imprison-
ment." The literal construction, in leaving un-
invalidated voluntary conveyances made after the
imprisonment had begun, would have led to an
incongruity which the Legislature could not be
supposed to have intended (a). Sec. 65, County
Courts Act, 1888, which provides that, where the
claim in an action of contract does not exceed
£100, a Judge of the High Court may order the
action to be tried in any County Court "in which
the action might have been commenced," was con-
strued with the addition of the words " if it had been
a County Court action," as otherwise the enact-
ment would have been insensible and inoperative (6).
The Bankruptcy Act, 1869, providing that all
the property acquired by the bankrupt " during
the continuance " of the bankruptcy should be

(a) Birki' v. Smith, 6 L. J. Ex. 54.

(b) 51 A 52 Viot. c. 43 ; Curti, v. Slovin, 22 Q. B. D. 513. See
also Biirhtt v. r*o»>o», [189S!] 1 Q. B. 312. By s. 3 of 3
Edw. VII. 0. 42, the jurisdiction of a County Court is extended
to '.aims not exceeding £100. Demands may not be divided
for the purpose of bringing two or more actions. See s. 81,
County Court Act, 1888.

J. J

412

IVTBRPBKTATInv or BTATUrKfl.

^v.«ble among his oreditom, and providing also
that ha m.gh'; obtain his diwharge no« only at the
oIoM. but during the oontinnanoe of hi. blnk
"Ptoy («), it was held that the earlier passage
must be read in subatanoe a. meaning thaT he

acquired either during the continuance of th

2^7 lu" ^' *""" ^•''°^"«« "' »•»« bank
rapt (4) This construction was deemed necessanr
to avoid leaving the bankrupt incapable of acquiN
ing property after he had given up ever^hinj to
h« creditors simply because the property had not

nrcCS' "' """'"""' *'" '""'"'P*"^

JL!' °^uT *^''* *'"' provisions in numerous
Btatutos which hmit the time and regulate the
procedure for legal proceedings for compensation
for acts done in the execution of his office by a
justice or other persou, or "under" or "by
virtue," or "in pursuance" of his authority, do
not mean what the words, in their plain and
uneqmvocal sense, convey; since an act done in

(») As to what will di,entitle « bankrupt to JisoharRe s«
Smih, h re (1919), L. J. K. B, 113. ^>on«ge, s«

(b) See as to this point, BiU v. Settle. [19171 1 Ch. 319 C A
W 32 4 33 Viot. c. 71,ss. lOand 4b ipealeld. Asto si^ii

prov.s.on8 in existing Aot,seess.26and38,Bankruptoy Act. 1914;
m... £a„W.(1875), L. E. 10 Ch. 479; and J C» W.
&»«.; V. Semll (1894), 63 L. J. Q. B. 820.

MODiricATioN or THIS la:<uuaok. 413

Moordtnoe with law if not aotiouable, and there-
fore needs no ipeoial atatntorjr protection (o). Such
proviMons are obviously intended to protect, under
certain oironmstances, acts which are not legal or
justifiable (6); and the meaning given to them by
a great number of decisions seems, in the result,
to be that they give protection in all oases where
the defendant did, or neglected (e), what is com-
plained of, under colour of the statute (d) ; that
is, being within the geueral purview of it, and
with the honest intention of acting as it authorised,
though he might be ignorant of the existence of

(o) Per Cur., Jlugif v. B»rUaiid (1846), 18 L. J. Ex. 233.
</. The Publio Authorities Protection Act, 1893 (5ti A 67 Viot.
0. 81), where the words are, " Where . . . any aotiou ... is
oommenoed . . . against any person for any aot done in ,r.
■uanoe or execution, or intended execution, j* any Aot of
Parliament, or of any public duty or authority."

(6) See ex. gr. Wane v. Varlej,, 6 T. R. 443 ; Lea v. Facta
(1887), 19 Q. B. D., Esher M.B., at p. 384.

(.) Wilton V. Balifax (1868), L. B. 3 Ex. 114 ; Nexhn v. EllU
24 L. J. Q. B. Sn.

((I) Thus the Publio Authorities Protection Act, 1893, has
been held to extend its protection to municipal bodies in the
oxeoution of duties in connection with commercial enterprises
undertaken under statutory authority ; The Tdm, [1899] P. 236 ;
Parker v. London C. C, [1904] 3 K. B. 501. But see Luki v!
Soathend-on-Sea, 74 L. J. K. B. 484 ; per Buckley J., National
Telephone Co. v. Kingeton-ttpon-Bidl, 39 L. T. 291 ; Sharpinglon
V. FMam (1904), 73 L. J. Oh. 777 ; Mi/cre v. Bradford Curpora-
HoH (1915) L. J. K. B. 306.

"h^o

414

INTEBPBETATION OP .iPATUTES.

' '

the Act ; and actually, whether reasonably or not,
believing in the existence of such facts or atate
of things as would, if really existing, have justified
his conduct (a). Thus, if an Act authorised the
arrest of a person who entered the dwelling-house
of another at night with intent to commit a felony
(24 & 25 Vict. c. 96, s. 51), an arrest made in tliu
honest and not unreasonable, but mistaken, belief
that the person arrested had entered with that
intent, would be protected. Apparently, how-
ever, there would be no protection if the arrest
were made under a misconception, not of the facts,
but of the law ; as, for instance, if the person making
the arrest believed that the prisoner had only

(a) See, among many other authorities, Oreenmay v. Hard, 4
T. R. 553 ; Bolertt v. Orchard, 33 L. J. Ex. 65 ; Booth v. Clite,
20 L. J. C. P. 151 ; Carpue v. London & Brighton Rxj. Co., 13
L. J. Q. B. 133 ; Tarrant v. Bdker, 23 L. J. C. P. 21 ; £»r%
V. Harhy, 27 L. J. Ex. 258; Kiney. Everthed, 16 L. ,1. Q. B.
271 ; Hermann v. Seniuchal, 32 L. J. C. P. 43 ; Dmmiiuj v. GiyW,
L. E. 2 C. P. 461 ; Leete v. Bart, L. B. 3 C. P. 322 ; Chambcrl<m
V. King, L. E. 6 C. P. 474 ; Selmei v. Jadge, L. E. 6 Q. B. 724;
Midland By. v. Withington Loc. Bd., 11 Q. B. D. 788 ; Mama v.
Aird, 51 L. J. Q. B. 244 ; Denny v. Thicaites, 46 L. J. M. C. 141 ;
Cree v. St. Paneras Vestry, [1899] 1 Q. B. 693 ; 68 L. J. Q. B.
389. In the following oases the Act has been held inapplicable :
Clerks V. 5(. Helen's Corp., 85 L. J. K. B. 17, C. A. ; ,¥/,(,» v.
Bradford Corf., (1915) 84 L. J. K. B. 306 ; fry v. ChdtvAm
Corp., 81 L. J. K. B. 41 ; Hart v. Marylehone Borough Council, 7l!
J. P. 257 ; A.-G. v. Lemr Corp. (1911), 81 L. .J. Ch. 10 ; ),'.
V. Hertford Union, 111 L. T. 716.

ij'^

MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAQIS.

415

attempted to enter ; a diflferent offence, for which
the enactment in question does not authorise
arrest ; or if, where the law justified an immediate
apprehension, an arrest was made which was not
immediate (a). As a general proposition, however,
unreasonableness of belief is immaterial, if the
belief be honest; though it is an important
element in determining the question of honesty (6).
A repealed Act (26 & 27 Vict. c. 29) (c), which
enacted by s. 7 (d) that no witness before an
election inquiry should be excused from answer-
ing self-criminating questions relating to corrupt
practices at the election under inquiry, and entitled
him, when he answered every question relating to
those matters, to a certificate of indemnity declar-
ing that he had answered all such criminating
questions, was held to apply only where the witness
answered " truly in the opinion of the com-
missioners " ; for it was not to be supposed that
any answer, however false or contemptuous, was
equally intended («). It is observable that this
interpolation was made in the Act, notwithstanding
that it repealed an earlier enactment which had

(a) Gri;^<i V. Tay/or (1876), 2 C. P. D. 194; Morgan v. Palmer
2 L. J. (0. S.) K. B. 146.

(6) See Clark v. Molyneuac, 3 Q. B. D. 237.

(c) Repealed by Corrupt and Illegal Practices Provention
Act, 1883.

(rf) See s. 50 of 46 & 47 Vict. o. 51.

(e) Jt. V. Htilme, h. E. 5 Q. B. 377 ; S. v. Boll, 7 Q B. D. 076.

f ' M

416

INTEBPEBTATION OF STATUTES.

protected the witness only when he made " true '"
discovery.

Sec. 374, of the long since repealed Merchant
Shipping Act, 1854, which enacted that no license
granted by the Triiuty House to pilots "shall con-
tinue in force beyond the Slst of January," after
its date, but that " the same may be renewed on
such 3l8t of January in every year, or any subse-
quent day," was construed as meaning, not that
the renewed licenses must be issued on or after
that day, but that they should take effect from the
31st of January. This departure from the strict
letter was justified by the great inconvenience
which would have resulted from a rigid adherence
to it, since it would have left the whole district
for a certain period, probably days, possibly weeks,
without qualified pilots (a).

In s. 7, Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1834,
which enacts that railway and canal companies
shall be liable for the loss or any injury done to
"any horses, cattle, or other animals" (which
would include a dog) intrusted to them for car-
riage, with the proviso that no greater damage

(o) The Seta, 3 Moo. P. 0. N. S. 23. It is now provided by
B. 699 (4) of the Merchant Shippmg Act, 1894, that " A pilotage
certificate . . . shall not be in force for more than the neriod of
one year from its date, but may be renewed from year to
year. . . ." As to the grant of pilotage certificates to masters
and mates, see a. 23, Pilotage Act, 1913 (2 & 3 Geo. V. o. 31),

MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE.

417

should be recovered for the loss of, or injury
done to, " any of such animals " beyond the sums
thereinafter mentioned — specifying certain sums
for horses, neat cattle, sheep and pigs, but making
no mention of dogs — the proviso was read, in order
to reconcile it with the enacting part, as dealing
only with " any of thefollo.Ang of such animals " (a).
Where t railway company was made liable to make
good the deficiency in the parochial rates arisiug
from their having taken rateable property, " until
its works were completed and liable to assess-
ment," the House of Lords held that the intention
was that the liability should cease as regards
any one parish, as soon as that portion of the
line which ran through it was completed; in
other words, that the Act was to be read as fixing
the liability when " its works in the parish w; i a
completed " (6).

A case in the Queen's Bench may be cited as
furnishing a remarkable example of judicial modifi-
cation for the purpose of supplying an apparent
case of omission, and avoiding an injustice and
absurdity, such as the Legislature was presumed

(o) Barrinon v. Londmi and Brighton By. Co., 29 L. J. Q. B.
209 ; reversed on another point (1862), 31 L. J. Q. B. 113 ; B. v.
Strachan, L. E. 7 Q. B. 463. See another instance of' inter-
polation in Perry v. Skinner, sup. p. 389.

(b) Eatt London By. Co. v. Whiteehureh (1874), 43 L. J. M. C.
159, sup. p. 32.

i.s. 27

418

INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

not to have intended. Under 1 <& 2 Viot. c. 110 {n),
an insolvent prisoner for debt might be discharged
from imprisonment, either upon his own petition,
or upon the petition of any of his creditors.
10 & 11 Viot. c. 102 (6), in abolishing the circuits
of the Insolvent Commissioners, and transferring
their jurisdiction to the County Courts, provided
that " if an insolvent petitions," the Insolvent
Court should refer his petition to the Court of the
district where he was imprisoned ; but it omitted
all mention of cases where the petitioner was a
creditor. The Court, however, considered that an
intention to include the latter sufficiently appeared.
To confine the section to its literal meaning would
have involved the unjust result that, though a
vesting order might be made, and the debtor be
deprived of his property, he would remain im-
prisoned. The words " if an insolvent petitions "
were accordingly understood to have merely put
that case as an example of the more general
intention, viz., " if a petition be presented." For
the purposes of the Legislature, it was immaterial
whether the petition was the insolvent's or the
creditor's {c).

Again, notwithstanding the general rule that
full effect must be given to every word, yet if uo

(o) Sec. 36. (fc) Sec. 10.

(c) B. V. Dmeling (1857), 8 E. & B. 60d, nom. Oreenwood, Eif.,
27 L. J. Q. B. 28.

l\

MODIFICATION OP THE LANatTAOE.

419

sensible meaning can be given to a word or phrase,
or if it would defeat the real object of the enact-
ment, it may, or rather it should, be eliminated (o).
The words of a statute must be construed so as
to give a sensible meaning to them if possible.
They ought to be construed ut res maffis mleat
quam pereat (6).

The Carriers Act, 1830 (1 Will. IV. c. 68), which
ecf-ots that a carrier shall not be responsible for
tiie loss of certain articles delivered for carriage,
urless the sender declares their value and nature,
at the time of delivery, " at the office " of the
carrier, was held to protect the carrier, where the
parcel had been delivered to his servant elsewhere
than at the office, and no declaration had been
made either there or elsewhere ; the fair meaning
of the statute, and the paramount object of the
Legislature being that the carrier should in every
case be apprised of the nature and value of the
article entrusted to him, whether it was delivered
at the office or elsewhere («).

(a) Per Lord Abingor, Lyde v. Sanard, 1 M. & W. 115 ; per
Brett J., atone v. leovil, 1 C. P. D. 701, though in that case
the elimination was not necessary, 2 C. P. D. 99, and where
elimination is unnecessary there is no power to delete. See also
Plant V. Pottt, [1891] 1 Q. B. 256, and Unrcum v. Haieary, [1894]
1 Q. B. 579, C. A.

(b) Per Bowen L.J., Curds v. Stovin, 22 Q. B. D. 513 ; and
per Lindley L.J., The Duke of Buedeuch, 15 P. D. 86.

(o) jBcaeUo/e v. Mart (1852), 21 L. J. Ex. 123.

420

INTEBPHETATION OP STATUTES.

An Act (26 & 26 Viot. o. 114) which authorised
constables to search any person whom they sus-
pected of coming from any land in unlawful pursuit
of game, and, if any game was found upon him, to
detain and summon him, was held to authorise
a constable to summon a man whom he saw on
a footway, with a gun in his hand, picking up a
rabbit thrown from an adjoining enclosure, just
after the report of a gun, but whom he did not
search. There was nothing in the general object
of the Act to lead to the supposition that " the
enormous absurdity " of requiring an actual bodily
search under such circumstances was intended;
and such a depai-ture from the language of the
Act was therefore considered as really meeting the
true intention (a). The Extradition Act, 1870
which authorises the " apprehension " of a person
on warrant, includes the detention of one already
in custody, though arrested without a warrant {!>),
So, the 35 Geo. III. c. 101, s. 2, which empowered
justices to suspend, in case of sickness, the order
of removal of any pauper who should be '= brought
before them for the purpose of being removed,"

(a) Hall V. Knox (1863), 33 L. J. M. 0. 1 ; Lloyd v. lloi/d, 14
Q. B. D. 725, which discusses Clarke v. Crowder, L. E. 4 C. P.
638, and Turner v. Morgan, h. E. 10 C. P. 587, where the
statute was construed strictly. See also sup. p. 381. Comp.
Vinler v. Hind, 10 Q. B. D 63.

(h) 33 * 34 Viot. c. 52, s. 8 ; B. v. Weil, 53 L. J. M. C. 74.

"OB" AND "AND."

431

was construed as authorising such suspension with-
out the actual bringing up of the pauper before
the justices ; as theUteral construction would have
defeated the humane object of the enactment (a).
And to prevent the enormous injustice which
would result from a literal interpretation of the
enactment that the Court of Bankruptcy should
refuse a bankrupt his discharge in all cases where
the debtor had committed an offence " under the
Debtors Act, 1869," it was held that the words
" connected with or arising out of the bankruptcy -
must be added to qualify the general words (i).
This interpretation, with amplifications, is in-
corporated in B. 26 (2), second paragraph, of the
Bankruptcy Act, 1914.

To carry out the intention of the Legislature,
it is occasionally found necessary to read the
conjunctions "or" and "and" one for the other.
The 43 Eliz. c. 3 (c), for instance, which speaks of
property to be employed for the maintenance of
" sick and maimed soldiers," referred to soldiers
who were either the one " or " the other, and not
only to those who were both (d),

(a) B. V. Everdon, 9 East, 101. See. 2 is repealed in part by
S. L. B., 1871. If y

(b) 50 & 51 Vict. 0. 66, a. 2; Me Brockelbank, sup. p. 358
(.) Repealed by S. L. B., 1863.

(d) Duke, Chant. Uses, 137.

If "T??*-"'

432

IMTEBPBBTATION OF 8IATUTIU.

I

The 1 Jso. I. 0. 16 (a), which made it an act of
bankrnptoy for a trader to leave his dwelling-house
" to the intent, or, whereby his creditors might be
defeated or delayed," if construed literally, would
have exposed to bankruptcy every trader who left
his home even for an hour, if a creditor called duriug
his absence for payment. This absurd conse-
quence was avoided, and the real intention of the
Legislature beyond reasonable doubt effected, by
reading " or " as " and " ; so that an absence from
home was an act of bankruptcy only when coupled
with the design of delaying or defeating creditors (b).

The converse change was made in a Turnpike Act
which imposed one toll on every oarr^'je drawn by
four horses, and another on every horse, laden or not
laden, but not drawing ; and provided that not more
than one toll should be demanded for repassing ou
the same day " with the same horses and oarriaged."
It was held that the real intention of the Legislature
required that this •' and " should be read as " or,"
and that a carriage repassing with different horses
was not liable to a second toll. The toll was imposed
on the carriage; and it was immaterial whether
it was drawE by the same or different horses (c).
In the provision of the Metropolis Managemeut

(o) Repealed 6 Geo. IV. c. 16, 8. 1.

(6) Fouler v. Padget (1798), 7 T. E. 509 ; 4 B. R. 511. iSee
also B. V. Mortlakc, 6 East, 397.

(f) Waterkoute v. Keen (1825), 40 R. B. 858, wrongly reporfcil
n the marginal note in 4 B. & C. 200.

"OB" AND "AKD."

423

Amendmeut Act, 1862, that no road shall be formed
as a street for carriage traffic unless widened to
40 feet, or unless such street shall be open al
both ends, the word " or " was read "nor," for the
manifest intention was not that one of the two, but
that both conditions should be complied with ; that
is, that the street should not only be 40 feet wide,
but also be open at both ends (a).

This substitution of conjunctions, however, has
been sometimes made without sufficient reason ;
and it has been doubted whether some of the oases
of turning " or " into " and," and ince versd, have
not gone to the extreme limit of interpretation (b).
It may be questioned, for instance, whether the
judges who " were at the making " of the statute
2 Hen. V. o. 3, which required that jurors to try an
action when the debt " or " damages amounted to
forty marks, should have land worth forty shillings,
were justified in construing it "by equity," and
converting the disjunctive "or" into "and "(c).

(a) 25 & 36 Viot. o. 102, s. 98 ; seotioD repealed a. 215, 4th
Eohed., Londor Building Act, 1894. Jtte/roji, Board v. Steed,
8 Q. B. D. 145 ; i)ai» v. London 0. C, 69 L. J. M. C. 112.
For existing provisions as to roads, see ss. 11 u 12 London
Buildiag Act, 1894 (57 & 58 Viot. o. ooxiii.).

(h) Per Lord Halsbury L.C., Mertcj Dockt v. Hmderion, 13
App. Cas. 603. For a full collection of the oases hereon, see
Stroud's .Judicial Dictionary and Supp. tit.. Or bead as .\-so,
A.xD Vice Veksa.

(<■) Co. Litt. 272ii.

4U

IRTBBFBVrATION OF BTATUTBS.

The Court of Qaeea's Benoh, on one oooiaion (now
overruled) held that the power given to jastioes by
the Highway Act, 1885 (5 & 6 Will IV. o. 60 (a)), to
order the diversion of a highway, when it appeared
" nearer or more commodious to the pnblio," was
limited to cases where the new road was both
nearer and more commodious (b) ; bnt the same
Court more recently held that the power waa
exercisable when the new road was either the one
or the other (o).

Statutes which authorise persons to do acts for
the benefit of others, or, as it is sometimes said, for
the public good or the. advancement of justice, have
often given rise to controversy when conferring the
authority in terms simply enabling aud not manda-
tory. In enacting that they " may," or " shall, if
they think fit," or, " shall have power," or that
" it shall be lawful " for them to do such acts, a
statute appears to use the language of mere per-
mission ; but it has been so often decided as to
have become an axiom that in such cases, such

(a) Seos. 85, 91.

(6) B. V. Shilet (1841), 1 Q. B. 919.

(e) B. V. Fkillif (1866), 35 L. J. M. C. 217 ; Wright v. Frml
32 L. J. M. C. 204. See Barrington v. Banuay, 22 L. J. Ex.
326 ; Oldfield v. Dodd, Id. 144. As to what constitutes " a good
notice " of intention to apply for justices order, see B. v.
7)«ri)y JJ., [1917] 2 K. B. 802.

"MAT" AHD •MUST."

43fi

expressionn may have — to say the least — a oom-
palsory force (a), and bo would seem to be modified
by jadioial exposition. On the other hand, in some
cases, the authorised person is invested with a dis-
cretion, and then those expressions seem divested
of that oompuls'-ry force, and, probably, that is the
primA facie meaning.

In an early case, where it was contended that
13 <& 14 Car. II. o. 12, s. 18(6), in enacting that
the churchwardens and overseers "shall have
power and authority " to make a rate to reimburse
parish constables certain expenses, left it optional
with them to make it or not, the Court held that
it was obligatory on them to make it, whenever
disbursements had been made and not been paid.
" May be done," it was observed, is always under-
stood, in such cases of public or private right, as
" must be done " (c). So, where a statute directed
that churchwardens should deliver their accounts
to justices, and enacted that the latter " shall and
they are hereby authorised and empowered, if they
shall so think fit," to examine the accounts, and
disallow unfounded charges, it was held that the
justices could not decline to enter upon the

(o) Per Our., B. v. Tithe Oommn., 80 B. R. 271.
{b) Bepealed by 35 & 36 Vict. c. 92, s. 13, and replaced by
s. 4 of that Act.
((•) S. V. Barlow (1693), Garth. 293 ; li. v. Verhn, Skin. 370.

■^f.

4M

INTKBPUrrATION OF aTATims.

examination (a), or b« at liberty to allow charges
not sanctioned by law (5). Again the Weights
and Meaanres Act, 1889, which provide! that au
inspector " may take in respect of the verification
and stamping of weights, measures, and weighiug
instruments the fees specified," is obiigatory and
imposes on the inspector a duty to take the fees
in all cases (c). Though s. «, 11 & 12 Vict.
0. 42, enacts that justices " may " issue a summous
on an information laid before them, only, " if they
shall think fit," it was held that they were not ut
liberty to refuse it on any extraneous considera-
tions, such as that the prosecution was iuexpedieut,
or that the law would operate unjustly in the
particular case (d). A charter which granted to
the steward and suitors of a manor "pv ar and
authority " to hold a Court to hear civil suits,
was held to make it obligatory to hold it when

! li

(o) J?. V. Cambridge, 8 DowL 89 ; per Bramwell L.J., S. v.
(htford (Bp.), i Q. B. D., at p. t, j. Comp. B. v. Nar/M. i
B. & Ad. 238.

(6) Barton v. PiggotI, 44 L. J. M. 0. 8.

(c) 52 & 53 Vict. c. 31, e. 13. Seotion repealed by Sohed.
n. of 4 Edw. VII. 0. 28, and re-enaoted mm tar by b. 9 of that
Act. B. V. Bobertt, [1901], 3 K. B. 177.

(rf) B. V. Adaiiiiian (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 201; R. v. Fau:,eU, 11
Cox C. C. 305; Exp. Leicit, 21 Q. B. D. 191 ; B. v. Bynh, 60
L. J. M. 0. 17 ; and see S. v. JIfearf (1916), 80 .1. P. 332. X vui v
instructive case on this point.

'MAY" AKD "MUiT."

427

ueoeuaty (a). Again, a. 7, Tithe Act, 1842 (5 & U
Viot 0. 54), which enaots that if any agreement
for the oommatation of tithes made before the Act,
which was not of legal validity, should appear to
the Tithe Oommissioners 'io give a fair equivalent
for the tithe, they " shall bo empowered " to con-
firm it, or, if unfair, to confirm it nevertheless, and
to award such a rent-charge as would make it a
proper equivalent, and to extinguish the tithe ; it
was considered that the Commissioners were bound
to make any such agreement between the parties
the basis of their own settlement, and were not
at liberty to throw it wholly aside in carrying
out the general policy of the Act, viz., tithe
extinction (6).

So, in Backwell'a Cane, Lord Keeper North held,
and of the same opiniou weio all the ju'lg^ s, that
the statute which enacted that the Chancellor
" should have full power " to issue a oommissiou
of bankruptcy against a bankru^ trader, on the
petition of his creditors, imperatively required
its issue; declaring that ','™ay" ^^^ ™ effect

(a) B. V. aateriag-alle-Bower, 5 B. & Aid. 691 ; B. v. Hmllngn,
Id. 692 n., both better reported in 3 D. & B. 176 n., and 1 D. A B.
148.

(I) S. V. Tithe Cmmrt., 14 Q. B. 474. And see Juliiu v.
Oxford (Bp.) (1880), 5 App. Cas. 214 ; 49 L. J. Q. B. 577 ;
note especially diela Cairns Ij.C, at - 224, and Penzance Ld.,
p. 229, iuf. pp. 432, 433.

428

IKTERPBETATION OP STATUTBa

" must " (a). Under s. 13, 13 & 14 Vict. o. Bl (6),
which enacted that the Superior Court "may"
give the plaintiff the costs of his action, if he Uverl
more than 20 miles from the defendant, it was
held that the Court was bcund to give them in
every case in which the plaintiff and defendant
dwelt more than that distance apart (c). Under
the provision of s. 5, Arbitration Act, 1889, that
where a submission provides that the reference
shall be to a single arbitrator, and all parties do
not concur in appointing an arbitrator, any party
may serve the other parties with a written notice
to appoint, and if the appointment is not made in
seven clear days the Court " may," on the appli-
cation of the party who gave the notice, appoint
an arbitrator, it is obligatory on the Court to
make an appointment if applied to {d). An Act
which made it "lawful" for a Court to stay
proceedings in actions against companies under
liquidation until proof of the plaintiff's debt (e) ;

(a) 13 Eliz. c. 7 ; 1 Jao. o. 15 ; BacJmelVs Cote, 1 Vera. 152.
(6) Bepealed by 51 & 52 Viot. o. 43, a. 188.

(c) MeDougall v. Paterton (1851), 21 L. J. 0. P. 27; ace.
Crake v. Pmett, 21 L. 3. Q. B. 183, overruling Jmei v. Harrim
20 L. J. Ex. 166.

(d) 52 & S3 Vict. c. 49, s. 6 ; Eyre atid Leiemter Corp., Be,
[1892] 1 Q. B. 136.

(e) 11 & 12 Viot. 0. 45, s. 73, now repealed, ilarton v. Lund
(1849), 13 Q. B. 664. For similar provisions in Or. .-npanies (Con-
solidation) Act, 1908, see s. 140.

'IT SHALL BE LAWFUL."

429

and a bankruptcy rule which provided that where
the Court has given no Jireot.ions as to the dis-
allowance of the cost ■• of impropiiT or unnecessary
proceedings, the tax. ig aiaster may" look into
the question, were held uijuaTly imperative (h).
So, the provision of s. 66, Corrupt and Illegal
Practices Prevention Act, 1883, that certain juris-
diction conferred by the Act " may " be exercised
by one of the judges for the time being on the rota
for the trial of election petitions, is to be read
as equivalent to "must," and the jurisdiction
cannot be exercised by any other judge (J). An
Act which empowered a vestry to make a paving
rate, and provided that when it appeared to the
vestry that the rate was not incurred for the equal
benefit of the whole parish, it "might" exempt
the party not benefited, was held to impose a
duty and not merely to confer a power on the
vestry, to apportion the burden when the case
arose (c).

On the other hand, where it was enacted that
" it should be lawful " for the Superior Courts to
issue commissions to examine witnesses abroad, it

(a) Bainet v. Wormley (1878), 47 L. J. Ch. 844.

(!>) 46 & 47 Vict. c. 51 ; Shau v. Beckitt, [1893] 1 Q. B. 779.

(c) EoweU \. London Dock Co. (1858), 27 L. J. M. C. 177. For
comments on this case, which was an anomalous one, see
B. V. 0. W. By. (1858), 28 L. J. M. C. 59. See also Dormout
V. Fumess By. Co., 11 Q. B. D. 496.

i

430

INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

pi

illii (

i ;■

■■ -y^

i,
i'

•

was held that the Court was not bound to issue
suoh a oommission simply on proof that the per-
sons whose evidence was required were abroad, but
that it was in the discretion of the Court to deter-
mine upon the special oircnmstanoes of each case
whether it was advisable in the interests of justice
to issue it or not (a). So, under a statute which
enacted that where a county bridge is narrow,
" it shall and may be lawful " for the Quarter
Sessions to order it to be widened, it was held
(having regard to the nature of the Court entrusted
with the power, and to the subject matter which
might involve other considerations besides the
width of the bridge, such as the cost of the pro-
posed work and its possible disproportion to auy
public benefit likely to be derived from it) that
It was discretionary to make the order or not (6).
But " may," where used in s. 9 of 38 & 39 Vict c
86, is imperative (c). Again, the enactment that if
part of the consideration for an annuity were
returned, or paid in goods, or reiained on any

(a) 1 Will. IV. 0. 22, s. 4 ; Ca,tem v. ffr«,« (1852), 21
L. J. Q. B. 308. See Armour v. Waller, 25 Ch. D 673-
Lamon v. Fo«mm Brake Co. (1884), 27 Ch. D. 137. This latter
case explained in Coch v. Alkock (1888), 21 Q. B D 1
affirmed 57 L. J. Q. B. 489.

(6) 43 Geo. HI. c. 59, a. 2; Be Nev,p«rt Bridge (1859), 29
L. J. M. 0. 52. *

(c) B. V. Mitchell, Livesey, Sxp. (1913), 77 J P 148 ■ 82
L. J. K. B. 153.

' IT SHALL BE LAWFUL."

431

pretence, " it should be lawful " for the Court to
cancel the annuity deed, if it should appear that
« any such practices," had been used ; the Court
considered that this last expression limited the
enactment to cases where any of the forbidden
acts had been done malo animo, and held that it
was in their discretion to set the deed aside or
not (a). The Church Discipline Act, 1840, which
enacts that in every case of a clergyman charged
with an ecclesiastical offence, or concerning whom
a scandal may. exist of having committed such an
offence, " it shall be lawful " for the bishop, on the
application of any person complaining of it, or if
he thinks fit, on his own motion, to appoint a
commission to examine witnesses, to ascertain if
there be sufficient primA facie ground for instituting
further proceedings, was held to leave it discre-
tionary with the bishop to appoint a commission on
receiving such a complaint. Having regard to
the pre-existing state of the law and the character
of the bishop's office, it was considered that it was
his duty, before issuing the commission, to
determine on the expediency of instituting the
prosecution, taking into his consideration the
nature, credibility, or importance of the charge,
and the status, solvency, and religious character of

(o) 53 Geo. m. 0. 141, s. 6 ; repealed by 17 & 18 Vict. o. SO ;
Barter v. Oamton (1821), 4 B. & Aid. 281 ; Oirilettone v. .il«aii,
1 B. & C. 61.

482

INTKRPBETATION OF STATUTES.

:ij;n.iiil

the complainant, as well as the general interests of
the Church (a).

This subject underwent much discussion in R.
V. Oxford (Bp.), and elicited varions views. The
Queen's Bench held that it was imperative to
issue the commission where a complaint had
been made of an ecclesiastical offence (/>), but the
Court of Appeal reversed this decision (c), and this
reversal was upheld on appeal to the House of
Lords, who were practically unanimous in their
view.

According to Lord Cairns, such words as " it
shall be lawful " are always simply permissive {d)
or enabling. They confer a power, and do not, of
themselves, do more. But there may be some-
thing in the natare of the thing empowered to be
done, something in the object for which it is to be
done, something in the conditions under which it
is to be done, something in the title of the persons
for whose benefit the power is to be exercised,
which may couple the power with a duty, and
make it the duty of the person in whom the power

(a) 3 & 4 Vict. c. 86, practically repealed by 65 & 56 Vict.
c. 32 (Clergy Discipline Act, 1892) ; B. v. Oxford (Bp.), 4 Q. B. D.
525 ; JuUiui v. Oxford (JJp.), 5 App. Cas. 214 ; AUcrofI v. Lomhn
(Bj).), [1891] A. 0. 666; B. v. Chichetter {Bp.), 2 E. & E. 209.

(6) B. V. Oxford [Bp.), 4 Q. B. D. 245.

(c) 4 Q. B. D., p. 525.

(d) S. C, 5 App. Gas., p. 222.

"IT SHALL BE LAWFUL."

483

is reposed to exercise it when called upon to do
so ; it lies on those who contend that an obliga-
tion exists to exercise the power, to show in the
circumstances of the case something which, accord-
ing to the above principles, created that obligation ;
and the oases decide only that where a power is
deposited with a public officer for the purpose of
being used for the benefit of persons who are
specifically pointed out, and with regard to whom
a definition is supplied by the Legislature of the
conditions upon which they are entitled to call for
its exercise, that power ought to be exercised, and
the Court will require it to be exercised (a). Lord
Penzance said that the words " it shall be lawful "
are distinctly words of permission only, and the
true question is, not whether they mean something
different, but whether, having regard to all the
circumstances — to the person enabled, to the
general object of the statute, and to the persons
for whose benefit the power may have been in-
tended to be conferred — they do or do not create
a duty in the person on whom it is conferred to
exercise it. It is not enough that the thing
empowered to be done should be for the public
benefit in order to make it imperative to exercise
that power on all occasions falling within the
statute. It may be assumed that all powers
conferred by statute on individuals in general

1. 8.

(a) 5 App. Gas., p. 225.

'fi

28

434

INTBBPBBTATION OF 8TATUTKB.

: I 1^

Fnblio Acts are for the public benefit, or they
would not have been conferred. He could fiud
no specific authority for the proposition that iu
a certain class of statutes such words as " it shall
be lawful " import primd facie, not permission but
obligation. The efiect of the cases in which the
exercise of the power conferred was held to be
obligatory was that, though the statutes concerned
had in terms only conferred a power, the circum-
stances were such as to create a duty, to show
that the exercise of any discretion by the person
empowered could not have been intended (a).
Lord Selbome's view was that words such as " it
shall be lawful " are not ambiguous and susceptible
either n{ a discretionary or an obligatory sense,
but their meaning is the same, whether there is or
is not a duty or obligation to use the power which
they confer. They are potential, and never (iu
themselves) significant of any obligation. The
question whether, a judge or public officer, to
whom a power is given by such words, is bound to
use it upon any particular occasion, or in any
particular manner, must be solved aliunde, and in
general it is to be solved from the context, from
the particular provisions, or from the general
scope and objects, of the enactment conferring
the power (b). Lord Blackburn's opinion was that

(a) 5 Arp. Gas., p. 228.
{h) Id., p. 235.

"MAY" AND "SHALL."

435

the enabling words gave a power which j»n'ma /acic
might be exercised or not ; but if the obj. ot for
which the power is conferred is for the purpose of
enforcing a right, whether public or private, there
may be a duty cast upon the donee of the power
to exercise it for the benefit of those who have
that right, when required on their behalf. Where
there is such a duty, it is not inaccurate to say
that the words conferring the power are equivalent
to saying that the donee must exercise it (a). But
he oonld not agree with the view that whenever
the statute is for the public good, and of general
interest and concern, powers conferred by enabUng
words are primli facie to be considered powers
which must be exercised {b).

More recently the Court of Appeal, in consider-
ing the provision of s. 125 (4), Bankruptcy Act,
1883 (repealed and replaced with certain alterations
by 8. 130, Bankruptcy Act, 1914), that any Court
in which proceedings have been commenced for
the administration of a deceased debtor's estate
" may," on the application of any creditor, and
on proof that the estate is insolvent, transfer the
administration to the Court exercising jurisdiction
in bankruptcy, decided that there w..s not enough
in the statute to show that the power conferred must

(o) 5 App. Cas., p. 241, and sec li. v. Mitchell (1913), 82
L. J. K.B. 153, at p. 157.
(b) 5 App. Cas., p. 245.

:i '

486

INTEBPBETATION OF HTATUTE&

be exercised whenever the estate is shovn to be
insolvent, and it was consequently a discretionary
power which the Court might refuse to use.
Following the decision of the House of Lords in
the preceding case it was said that from the
nature of the English language the word " may "
can never mean " must," that it is only potential,
and when it is employed there is another question
to he decided, viz., whether there is anything that
makes it the duty of the person on whom the power
is conferred to exercise that power. If not, the
exercise is discretionary. But when the power is
coupled with a duty of the person to whom it is
given to exercise it, then it is imperative (a).

Accordingly, when a statute enacts that a
candidate at an election " may " be present at the
polling place, or that a clergyman accused of an
ecclesiastical offence " may " attend the proceed-
ings of the commission appointed to inquire into
the accusation, or that a company "may" con-
struct a railway (6), or that a plaintiff " may " sue
in one action for injury done to his wife as well

(o) 46 4 47 Viot. o. 52; Baker, Be, 44 Oh. D. 362; JohamU-
berg Co., Se, [1892] 1 Ch. 683; and see B. v. Mitchell (1913),
82 L. J. K. B. 163.

(i) York & N. Midland By. Co. v. B., 22 L. J. Q. B. 225; B.
V. Q. W. By. Co., Id. 263 ; Darlmton Loc. Bd. v. L. & N. W. Bj.
Co., [1894] 2 Q. B. 694. See also Nieholl v. AUen, 31 L. ,1.
Q. B. 283.

■f

"MAY" AND "8HALU"

437

as himself (a), cases it which the donee of the
power has only his own interests or convenience
to consult, the wo-d "nay" is plainly permissive
only, and a mere privilege or license is conferred
which he may exercise or not at pleasure. But
an enactment that churchwardens " may " make a
rate for the reimbursement of constables, or the
Chancellor " may " issue a commission in a case of
baukruptoy, or one conferring power on the Courts
to direct that a person entitled to costs should
recover them, is no mere permission to do such
acts, with a corresponding liberty to abstain from
doing them. A duty is at the same time cast
upon the persons empowered. For these are cases
where a power is deposited with public officers,
for the purpose of being used for the benefit of
persons having righ.:> in the matter. So, when-
ever a statute confers an authority to do a judipial
act in a certain case, it is imperative on those so
authorised to exercise the authority when the case
arises, and its exercise is duly applied for by a
party interested and having a right to make the
application ; and the exercise depends, not on the
discretion of the Courts or judges, but upon proof
of the particular case out of which the power
arises {h). If a statute empowered justices to

{a) Brockhank v. Whitehaven Sy. Co., 31 L. J. Ex. 349.

(l) McDmgal T. Paterem, 11 C. B. 765. See also Burton d-

Iilhkhf.rn, Be, [1C03] 2 K. B. 300, where it was held that s. 32,

ii|

488

INTERPBETATION OF STATUTK8.

adjudicate in certain oases, that is, to impose a
certain penalty on persons whom they should find
guilty of a certain offence, it is incontestable that
they would have no option to decline jurisdiction
because uhe statute used only the word "may"
instead of " shall " There would be here such a
right in the public 3 to make it the duty of
the justices to exercise the power. Whether the
language was facultative only or mandatory, it
would be equally obligatory on them to hear and
determitit' the complaint, to decide, one way or
the otLei, whether the accused was guilty, and to
impose the penalty if he was(n). The Supreme
Court of the United States similarly laid it down
that what public officers are empowered to do for
a third person, the law requires shall be done
whenever the public interest of individual rights

Solidtorg Act, 1843 (6 & 7 Viot. o. 73), which eoaots that i.
solicitor " shall aad may be " struck off the rolls for certain
offences, does not give the Court a discretion to impose any less
punishment. (As to re-instatement, see 62 Vict. o. 4, s. 1). In
some cases, this rule seems to have been overlooked, and the
word "may" construed as simply permissive. See ex. gr.
B. V. Eye, 4 B. & Aid. 271 ; Jonet v. Barriton, 20 L. J. Ex.
166; Bell v. Crane, L. B. 8 Q. B. 481; B. v. South WeaU,
33 L. J. M. C. 193 ; De Beautoir v. Welch, 7 B. & C. 266. See,
however, B. v. Norfolk, 4 B. & Ad. 238 ; Ketty, Be, 64 L. J. Q. E.
129, followed and quali^ed in Neuson, Be, 53 Sol. >I. 342.

(a) Per Lord Blackburn, Julim v. Oxford (Bp.), 5 App. Cas.
244 : B. v. Cumlierlttiul, 4 A. * E. 695.

"IF THEY SHALL THINK FIT.'

(3»

call for the exercise of the power ; since the latter
is given not for their benefit, bat for his, and is
placed with the depositary to meet the demands
of right and prevent the failure of justice. In all
sttoh cases, the Court observed, the intent of the
Legislature, which is the teat, is, not to grant
a mere discretion, hut to impose a positive and
absolute duty (a).

Nor is the power made less imperative in any
such oases by express references to the discretion
of the authorised person. The duty ol issuing a
summons (A), or of examining the churchwarden's
accounts (c), was as obligatory under the statute
which empowered the justices to issue it or to
examine them, " if they should so think fit," as
it would have been if this expression had been
omitted. Where the judgment creditor of a com-
pany "might" have execution against any indi-
vidual shareholder of it, if he failed after due
diligence to obtain satisfaction of his debt from
the company, it was held by the Common Pleas

(a) Sapenisori v. U. S., i Wallaoe, 446. Sea b. 33, Interpreta-
tion Act, 1889 (52 4 53 Viot. o. 63), which provideB that, in future,
when an Act oonfers a power or imposes a duty, the power may
be exeroised, and the duty shall be performed from time to time
as the occasion requires, and by the holder for the time being of
the office on which the power is conferred or the duty imposed.

(6) R. V. Adamon, aup. p. 426. See also B. v. Evans (1890),
54 J. P. 471.

(p) B. V. Gawlbridge, sap. p. 426.

440

WTKRI'HETATIOK OF HTATITES.

!

that there vai no disoretion to withhold this
remedy from him in any oaae in which the Court
was satisfied that the specific facts indicated bv
the statute existed— viz., that the debt was un.
paid, that due endeavonrs had been made, and
had failed, to put in force the execution against
the company (a), and, it may be added, that the
creditor had done nothing to disentitle him to
execution against the shareholder (6) ; althongli
the statute not only directed that the leave of tlip
Court was to be asked for the execution, but pro-
vided that it " should be lawful " for the Court,
to grant or refuse the application for it, and ■' to
make suoh order as it might see fit." Another
familiar instance may be found in the case of a
distress warrant to enforce a poor rate. It is well
known that in every case where certain specific
facts are proved, viz., that a rate, valid on its face,
was made by a competent authority, that the rated
land is in the district and in the occupation of the
defaulter, and that the latter has been summoned
and has not paid, the justices have no option to
(a) 7 i 8 Viot. 0. 110 (repealed ; tor existing law, see 8 Edw. VII.
0. 69); MoruM v. Soyal Brititk BaiJc, 26 L. J. 0. P. 62; Bill
V. London d County Inmr. Co., 26 L. .1. Ex. 89. 'comj,.
Shrimpton v. SidnmUk ir. Bf. Co., L. B. 3 C. P. 80, decided on
8 4 9 Viot. 0. 16: discussed, without approval, In Lee v. Bmle
and Torringlon Jumlion B). Co. (1871), 6 L. R. C P 57G at
p. 681.
(!>) Scott V. Vxbridge By. Co., L. B. 1 0. P. 896.

"IF THBV RHALL THIVK riT."

441

refuM the warrant, though the statute says only
that they "may" israe it "if they think fit "(a).
In all suoh oases they mast exercise the power ;
they must "think fit" to do so whenever the
oooasion for it has arisen. In America, where it
was enacted that city councils " might, if deemed
advisable " (A), or even " might, if they believed
that the public good and the best interests of
the city required it " (c), levy a special tax to be
expended in the liquidation of their debtn, the
Supreme Court issued a mandamus to levy the
tax where it was proved that a debt existed,
nnd that there were no other means in pos-
session or prospect for their payment; holding
that the discretion of the town councils was
limited by their duty, and could not, consistently
with the rules of law ((2), "be resolved in the
negative."

It is important here to notice the distinction
between a discretion to exercise a power, and a
discretion to determine only whether the occasion
for it has arisen. This is illustrated by the con-
struction of the enactment that justices may, if

|i

(o) S. V. Fhinii, 28 L. J. M. C. 201 ; B. v. Boleltr, 33 L. J.
M. 0. 101. See also B. v. CanAridgt, and B. v. Adammn, sup.
p. 426.

(6) Supenuon v. U.S., 4 Wallaoe, 446.

(c) &a/eiMi V. Amu, S Wallace, 706.

(d) Adverting to B. v. Barlou, aup. p. 43S.

4ti

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

they think fit, issue a summons upon an informa-
tion laid before them. Here the power is so far
discretionary, that they may grant or refuse the
summons according as they judge, in the honest
exercise of their discretion (a), that a primd facie
credible case is shown for it; but its exercise ia
imperative, in the sense that they are bound
to form an opinion, and if their opinion is that
such a case is shown, it is not competent to them
to refuse to exercise in on extraneous grounds,
sncli as th^t the prosecution is unadvisable (i%).
An arbitrary or capricious exercise of a discretion
would be no exercise at all (c). Again, as regards
the power to order the examination of witnesses
abroad {d), the power was discretionary, not because
the language was merely enabling, but because
the Legislature did not intend that the power
should be exercised where injustice would result ;
and the decision of the Court that no such con-
sequence was likely to ensue was a fact essential
to make the exercise of the power a duty. So, in
the Bishop of Oxford's Case, though the power was
widely discretionary as regards the question
whether the occasion for its exercise arose, the

(a) See sup. pp. 232-334.

(6) JJ. V. Adamtm, and B. v. Fawcelt, sup. p. 426.

(c) Per Lopes L.J., B. v. London {Bp.), 24 Q. B. D. 243 ; and
ptr Lord Esher M.B., B. v. St. Panerm, 24 Q. B. D. 876.

(d) Outelli V. Oroom, sup. p. 430.

OMISSIONS HAY BK HUPPLIED.

44»

Bishop conld not have declined to hear the com-
plaint (a) ; nor, if his own judicial discretion, un-
influenced by considerations foreign to his duty,
had decided that the occasion for it had arisen,
could he, consistently with the intention of the
Legislature, have refused to issue the com-
mission (&).

An omission which the context shows with
reasonable certainty to have been unintended
may be supplied, at least in enactments which
are construed beneficially, as distinguished from
strictly. Thus, when s. 33, Fines and Eecoveries
Act, 1833 (3 & 4 Will IV. c. 74), in providing
that if the protector of a settlement should be
(1) a lunatic, or (2) convicted of felony, or (3) an
infant, the Court of Chancery should be the
protector in lieu of the lunatic or the infant,
omitted the case of the convict of felony, it was
held by Lord Lyndhurst that the omission might
be supplied, in order to give effect to the manifest
intention. Without it, the mention of the case
of felony, in the first part of the sentence, was

(a) Per Lord Blaokbvrn, 6 App. Cas. 341. :See also jxr Lindley
UJ., B. V. Lmdon {Bp.), 34 Q. B. D. 340.

(!i) See the ooncluding remarks of Lord Justioe Bramwell's
jadgmeat in 4 Q. B. D. 565.

Note : — For the oases on, " It shall be Lawful," " May,''
" Must," " Shall," " Shall and Lawtullt May," see those
titles in Stroud's .f adioial Dictionary, and Supp.

444

INTERPRETATION OF STATDTEB.

)i

I I

insensible, and it necessarily implied the missing
words (o). Although no original limit of time is
specially mentioned in the Public Health Act,
1875, within which an umpire must make his
award, yet inasmuch as there is an express pro-
vision that the time for making an award by an
umpire under the Act shall not in any case be
extended beyond two months from the reference
to him, — a provision which implies the existence
of an original limit,— it has been held that by
analogy to the original limit fixed in the case
of arbitrators, an original limit of 21 days from
the date of the reference to him must be inferred
to have been fixed in his case also (6). So, where
a statute enacted that suits " against " an associa-
tion should be brought in the district where it
was established, without making any provision for
suits " by " the association ; but an earlier Act
had in a similar clause provided for suits both by
and against; the Supreme Court of the United
States held that the omission was accidental, and

:: II

(o) Se Wainatrighl, 1 Phil. 258. See also in Deeds, Deal v.
Clayton, 33 L. J. Ch. 503 ; mimt v. Wilxm, 5 H. L. Cas. 40 ;
and in Wills, Gremmod v. Gremmmd, 5 Ch. D. 964 ; Be Sedfen
6 Ch. D. 133.

(h) 38 & 39 Viot. 0. 66, s. 180 (9) ; Feodon toe. Bd.v. Yeadm
Watervxirla, 41 Ch. D. 52. As for the time prescribed by the
Act for the appoiotment of an arbitrator, see Stoker v. ifwpert
Corp., [1916] a K. B. 611.

OUI88IOX8 HAY BE 8UPPUED

445

might be;8npplied(a). See. 6, Statute of T.-auds
Amendment Act, 1828 (9 Geo. IV. o. 14), farm8he8
another example of clerical neglect which was
treated in the same spirit. It enacts that no
action shall be brought in respect of a representa-
tion made by one person concerning the conduct
or credit of another, to the intent that the latter
"may obtain credit, goods, or money upon" . . .
unless the representation was in writing. The
text is clearly imperfect. Lord Abinger, while
deeming any conjectural transposition of the
words inadmissible, held that the word " upon "
must be rejected as nonsensical ; but Baron Parke
considered that the Court was at liberty either,
by transposition, to read the passage " may obtain
goods or money on credit," or to interpolate after
"upon" the words "such representations " (6).
By 8. 58, London Building Act, 1894, a wall built
as, or becoming, a party wall in any part, " shall
be deemed a party wall for such part of its
length as is so used " ; that means (though not so
expressed) height as well as length, so that only

(a) Kennedy T. Oibtm, 8 Wallaoe, 498. Oomp. Haneodu v.
Ldblaehe, 3 C. P. D. 197. This latter oase, ginoa the passing of
the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, is no longer good
law.

(i>) Lfde V. Barnard, 1 M. & W. 101, 115. See also United
Alkali Co. v. Simpton, per Lord Coleridge O.J., [1894] 2 Q. B.
121.

448

IMTEBPBETATION OV 8TATUTBB.

J

80 muoh of the height as well as only so mucL
of the length of wall which had been used as a
party wall is to be deemed a party wall within the
section (a).

The reference in s. 6, Intestates' Estates Act,
1890, to the " testamentary " espenses of an intes-
tate, being obviously a slip in drafting, has been read
as referring to the expenses of obtaining letters of
administration and of administration generally (b).

In statutes governed by the principle of strict con-
stmotion, such emendations have been refused (o).

Clerical errors may be read as amended; as
where, for instance, an Act refers to another by
title and date, and mistakes the latter (d).

It has been asserted that no modification of the
language of a statute is ever allowable in construc-
tion except to avoid an absurdity which appears tu
be so, not to the mind of the expositor merely, but
to that of the Legislature ; that is, when it takes
the form of a repugnancy (e). In this case, the

Xorleg d LaneeUg (1911), 60

(a) London ic. Dairy Co.
L. J. E. B. 908.

(6) 63 & H Viot. c. 29, 3. 6 ; Twigg't £}ttate, Be, [1892] 1 Ch.
679.

(c) See Vnderhill v. Longridge, 29 L. J. M. 0. 65, inf.
p. 482.

(d) 2 Inat. 290 ; Atum., Skinn. 110 ; B. v. WUcode, 14 L. J.
M. 0. 104 ; Booduroyd, Be, 15 L. J. M. C. 57.

(«) Per Willes J., Motteram v. E. C. li. Co., 7 C. B. N. S. 58 ;
in Bell Cox v. Hakeg, IS App. Gas. 542, Lord Kield, accepting

■ EQUITABLE OOttSTBUGTION.

447

Legislature shows in one passage that it did not
mean what its words signify in another ; and a
modification is therefore called for, and sanctioned
beforehand, as it were, by the author. But the
authorities do not appear to support this restricted
view. They would seem rather to establish that
the judicial interpreter may deal with careless and
inaccurate words and phrases in the same spirit as
a critic d«als with an obscure or corrupt text,
when satisfied, on solid grounds (a), from the
context or history of the enactment, or from
the injustice, inconvenience, or absurdity of
the consequences to which it would lead, that the
language thus treated does not really express the
intention, and that his amendment probably does.

*»=

SBCIION n. — EQUIIABLK OONSIBUOTION.

The practice of modifying the lan^ ge, and
controlling the operation of enactments, however,
was formerly carried to still greater lengths. It
used to be laid down that a remedial statute
should receive an equitable construction ; so that
cases out of its letter should, if within the general

Willes J.'s tUetum, adds " absuidity " ; Abel v. Lee, L. B. 6 C. P.
36S ; CkrietopierKn v. Lolinga, 15 0. B. N. S. 809 ; per Brett .).,
Boon V. Eoaard, L. B. 9 C. P. 305.

(a) Comji. Green v. Wootl, aup. p. 36, aod oases citud
pp. 29-31.

■; ;

448

IKTEBPBETATION OF STATUTBa

object or misohief of the Act, be brought within
the remedy which it provided (a). The extremely
wide construction given to the expression " chant-
able " use or trust in the 43 Eliz. o. 4(6), is a re-
markable example of this construction; the Court
of Chancery including in that phrase a number
of subjects which undoubtedly no one outside the
Court of Charjery would have supposed to be
comprehended within it (c).

It is to be observed, indetl, that the expressiou
" equitable '? is often used in the older authorities
in diverse senses. Lord Mansfield said that
equity was synonymous with the intention of the
Legiskture(rf); and in this sense an equitable
construction is free from objection. Thus the
" equitable " construction, which included uses
within the Statute De Donis, though that enact-
ment spoke only of " lands and tenements," and
may have originally contemplated only common
law estates (e), and which applied 2 Hen. V.
(stat. 2) (1414) (/) (requiring that a juror should

(o) Co. Lit*. 24b; Bac. Ab. Statata (I.) 6; Oom. Dig. Parlia-
meat, B. 13.
(6) Sepealad by 81 & 63 Viot. o. 42, s. 13, which see.

(c) Per Lord Hakbury L.O., Income Tax Commn. v. Pemul,
[1891] A. 0. 642. See F<mam, Be, [1896] 2 Oh. 601.

(d) B. V. If««ioiiM, 1 W. Bl. 93.

(e) Corhet'a Cote, 1 Bep. 88.

(/) Bepealed as to England by S. L. E , 1868.

BQCITABLK C0N8TBUCTI0N. 448

have '< lands " worth 40 shillings), to the cestui que
ase, and not to the feoffee, when the legal estate
was in the latter (a), would seem to fall within the
now recognised ordinary rules of construction.
Ihe 4 Edw. III. 0. 7, which gave executors an
action against trespassers lor a wrong done to
their testator, was said to have given them also
an action on the case, by "the equity" of the
statute (*); but the decision was strictly on the
letter of the Act. It turned on the construction
of the word « trespass," which was held to mean
a wrong done generaUy, and of " trespassers,"
which was held to mean wrongdoers (c). The
decision that the Statute of Gloucester, o. 6 (which
gives the action of waste against lessees for life,
or "for years," to recover the wasted place and
treble damages), reached "by equity" a tenant
for one year and even for half a year, was

(o) Oo. Litt. a72b.

mz., 377.

(c) Pw Lord EUenborough, Wihm v. KiuAhf, 7 East 133
It was held to extend to all torts except those relating to the
testator s freehold, or where the injury was of a purely personal
nature. See Willianui v. Cary, 4 Mod. 403 ; 12 Mod. 71 • Bermek
V. A»dr«„. 2 Lord Baym. 971 ; Bra^,iau, v. La„c. dt Fori By.
^ L. E. 10 C. P. 189 ; Leggot, v. Ot. Norlhem By. Co., 1 Q. B. D.
S99. See also per Bramwell L. J., Tu^cro,, v. Grant, 4 C. P. D
*0, and Pulling t. Ol. Eaitem Bg. Co. (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 110, at

29

f fil

460

INTEBFBETATION OF 8TATUTB&

apparently of a similai character (a). So, when it
is said that it is on " the equity," or " equitable
construction " of the statute 2 W. & M. o. 5 (which
empowers a landlord to sell for the best price the
goods whiuh he has distrained for arrears of rent,
if the tenant does not replevy in five days), that
an action lies against the landlord who sells after
impounding but before the expiration of IIto
days (b), or after a tender of the rent and expenses
within tha^ time(c), or for less than th best
price (d), it has been held, however, trover will not
lie. No more apparently being meant than that a
cause of action was given by implication (e) against
a landlord who thus abused the power of sale
thereby conferred on him.

Byles J., in his terse way, summed up the view
he held by saying that " ' within the Equity ' means
the same thing as ' within the mischief of a
statute "(/).

But the expression has been more generally
used in other senses. In the construction of old

(a) Co. Litt. S3a ; 2 Inst. 302.

(6) Wallace v. King, 1 H. Bl. 13. See also Pitt V. Shetc, 4 B.
& Aid. 208 ; Harper v. TanweU, 6 C. & P. 166.

(c) Jolnum V. Vpkam, 28 L. J. Q. B. 252. See B. v. Cox, 2
Burr. 785 ; B. v. Toimger, 5 T. B. 449.

((/) Com. Dig. Uistresa (D.), 8 ; Farwell on Powers, c. 17.

(e) See Chap. XII, Sec. II.

(/) ShHilleirorth V. Le Fleming, 19 0. B. N. 8. 703.

EQVITABU! CONBTBUOTION.

4S1

statutes, it has been understood as extending to
general cases the application of an enactment
which, literally, was limited to a special case.
Thus, the Statute of Westminster 1 (3 Edw. I.
0. 4), which enacted that a vessel should not be
adjudged a wreck, if a man, a dog, or a cat escaped
from it, was regarded as exempting a vessel from
such adjudication, by an equitable construction,
if any other animal escaped, those named being
put only for example (a). The 46th chapter of the
same statute, which directed the judges of the
King's Bench to hear their causes in due order,
was extended, on the same principle, to the judges
of the other dourts (6) ; and the Statute of West-
minster 2, c. 31, which gave the bill of exceptions
to the ruling of the judges of the Common Pleas,
was similarly held applicable, not only to the
other judges of the Superior Courts, but to those
of the County Courts, the Hundred, and the Courts
Baron ; their judges being still more likely to err (c).
The 6 Hen. IV. o. 10, which forbade justices of
the peace to commit to any other than the common
jail, was held to be equally imperative on all other
judicial functionaries (d). The Statute of 1 Eich. II.
0. 12, which forbade the Warden of the Fleet to

(a) 2 Inst. 167 ; 5 Bep. 107.

(b) 2 Inst. 2S6.

(f) 2 Inst. 426 ; Strother v. HuUkinaon, 4 Bing. N. 0. 83.
(d) 2 Inst. 43.

INTEBFBKTATION Or BTATUTE8.

suffer his prisonen for judgment debts to go at
large, until they liad satisfled their debts, was held
to include all jailers (a). The Statute of Gloucester
(6 Edw. I.), c. 11, in speaking of London, was
considered as intending to include all cities and
boroughs equally ; the capital having been named
alone for excellency (6). The statute, or writ De
Cireumspeete Agatis (13 Ed. I.), which directs the
judges not to interfere with the Bishop of Norwich
or his clergy in spiritual suits, was construed as
protecting all other prelates and ecdesiastioB,
the Bishop of Norwich being put but for an
example (c).

This kind of construction,' which would not be
tolerated now(«2), was said to have been given
to ancient statutes in consequence of the concise-
ness v/ith which they were drawn (e) ; though the
specific expressions used can hardly be considered
more concise than the more abstract terms for
which they were, possibly, substituted. It has
been explained, also, on the ground that language
was used with no great precision in early times
and that A ->s were framed in harmony with the

(a) PlaU V. Lock, Flowd. 35.
(») 2 lost. 332.

(c) Id. 487.

(d) Per PoUook C.B., Hitter v. Sahmont, 31 L. J. Ex. 197.
(«) 3 Inat. 401 ; 10 Bep. 80b; per Lord Brongfaam, fiwyime

T. BameU, 6 Bing. N. C. 561.

■qviTABLi ooNtmnonoN.

4SS

lax method of interpretation oontemporaneouBly
prevalent (a). It has also been aooonnted for by
the fact that in those times the dividing line
between the legislative and judicial fanotions was
feebly drawn, and the importance of the separation
imperfectly understood (6). The ancient practice
of having the statutes drawn by the judges from
the petitions of the Commons and the answers of
the King (e) may also account for the latitude of
their interpretation. The judges would be disposed
to construe the language with freedom, knowing,
like Chief Justice Hengham and Lord Nottingham,
what they meant when framing tbem (d).

But an equitable construction has been applied
also to more modem statutes, and in a sense
departing still more widely from the language.
Thns, although s. 3, 31 Jac. o. 16, enacted that
certain actions should be brought within six years
after the cause of action accrued, " and not after,"
it was nevertheless held, notwithstanding these
negative terms, that where an action was brought
within six years, but abated by the death of either
party, a reasonable time — that is, a year, com-
puted, not from the death, but from the grant of

(o) Per Lord EUenborongh, Wihim v. Knublty, 7 East, 134.
(4) Sedg. Interp. Stat. 311. See per Lord Selbome, Bradlaugh
T. Clarke, 8 App, Cas. 363.
(«) Oo. Litt. 272a; sup. pj73.
W Sap. p. 49.

4M

IKTEBTBITATIOX OF ITATUm.

adminiBtration — was to be allowed, by an eqnitable
oonstrnotion of the statnte, beyond the period
given, to bring a fresh action by or against the
personal representatives of the deceased (a).

The provision of the Statute of Frauds, which
prohibits the enforcement of agreements for the
purchase of lands, unless they be in writing, was
held not to prevent the Court of Chancery from
decreeing the specific performance of such agree-
ments, though not in writing, where they had been
partly performed by the party seeking to enforce
the contract. On all questions on that statute, it
was said, the end and purport for which it was
made — namely, to prevent frauds and perjuries —
was to be considered ; and any agreement in which
there was no danger of either, was considered as
out of the statute (b). The statnte was not made
to protect or be the means of fraud (<:) ; and as it

(a) Hodtdm t. Barridge, 3 Wms. Sannd. 64a ; Curlem v.
MomingUm, 36 L. J. Q. B. 181 ; Suindett v. BuUteley, 56 L. J.
Q. B. 613. See also PiggoU v. Buih, 4 A. & E. 913 ; AlUnton v.
Braefford Bldg. Soc., 35 Q. B. D. 377 ; Tidd, Se, [1893] 3 Ch.
154.

(i) Per Lord Hardwioke, A.-O. v. Day, 1 Vet. senr. 331.

(c) Per Lord Mansfield, Carter v. Soehm, 3 Burr. 1918 ; per
Turner, L.J., Ltneoln v. Wright, 4 De G. & J. 16 ; Baigh v. Kai/r,
h. B. 7 Ch. 469; Waiiamt v. *toii., L. R. 19 Eq. 547; Unglen
V. Ungley, 5 Ch. D. 887 ; Be Duke of Marlborough, [1894] 3 Ch.
133. So., per Lord Selbome L.O., Maddixm v. AUerton, 8 App
Oas. 474

RQtTITABtR CONHTRIICTION.

4S6

wonld be a fraud on one of the parties if a partly-
performed contract were not completely performed,
the Court of Chancery compelled its performance
in contradiction to the positive enactment of the
statute (a). And upon this principle an attorney's
undertaking to pay his client's debt and costs has
been enforced on motion of the Court of which he
was an attorney, although void by the statute (h).
The general doctrine cited above, however, was
said by Eyre C.B., to raise the very mischief which
the statute intended to prevent (c), and would
probably have found no more favour at a later
period in Equity {d), than it did in the Courts of
Common Law where it was never recognised {e).

(a) Per Lord Bedesdale, Bond v. Hoi>ki<u, 1 Sob. & Lef. 133.
Bee also > -0. v. Dag, 1 Ves. aeor. 231 ; Laler v. FoMmft,
OoUei, l(k, uJ 1 White & Tudor's Eq. Ca. 881, where the
later anthorilies are colleoted ; 2 Story Eq. Jur. b. 7tSa et teq. ;
Wtbtttr V. Ifeitter, 37 L. J. Ch. ^ IS ; WiUon v. Wat Barihfool
Co., 34 L. J. Oh. 311 ; tfmn T. Fabian, h. B. 1 Oh. 3fi. See per
Grant M.B., Frame v. Damon, 14 Ves. 387, applied in Dickinton
V. Barrow, 73 L, J. Ob. 701, and in whioh latter case Caion v.
Caton, 35 L. J. Gh. 393, and McManut v. Cooke, 66 L. J. Ch. 663,
were commented on : JIadditon v. Aldenon, 8 App. Gas. 167 ;
Hamphrej/t v. Oreen, 10 Q. B. D. 118; Britain v. Rouiter, 11
Q. B. D. 133 ; McManm v. Cooke, gap.

(i) Etane v. Dttncan (1331), 1 Tyrw. 383.

(c) ffBeiUji V. Thompton, 2 Cox Eq. Oa. 373.

(d) See ex. gr. Hughea v. Morrie, 31 L. J. Cb. 761.

(e) BogdeU v. Drummond, 11 East, 112, 159 ; Cocklng'v. Ward,
16 L, J. 0. P. 346.

4M

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

Similar considerations affected the construction
which was put upon the Middlesex Registry Act,
1708 (7 Anne, c. 20) (a), which, after reciting that
frauds were committed by means of secret con-
veyances, enacted that deeds and wills affecting
lands, either at law or in equity, should be adjudged
fraudulent and void against subsequent purchasers,
unless a memorial of them were registered. It was
nevertheless held that such instruments, though
unregistered, were valid against subsequent pur-
chasers who had notice of them (*). It has been
doubted whether the efficacy of the Act was not
materially impaired by such a departure from its
letter (c).

On similar grounds, it would seem, although
the various Acts of ParKament which created
stocks since the beginning of the reign of George I.
provided that no method of assigning or trans-
ferring the stock, except that provided by the Act,
should be valid or available in law, and directed
that the owner of stock might devise it by will,
attested by two witnesses, it was established by
repeated decisions (before the Wills Act, 1837)
that, notwithstanding such express terms, stock

(o) Seo. 18.

(6) Le Ntve v. LtlTm, Amb. 436; Daeit v.Slrathmore (1809),
16 Ves. 419; Willit v. Broum, 10 Sim. 127.

(c) Ptr Sir W. Grant, Wyatt v. Botw.«, 19 Vcs. 439. See
eisoDoey. AlUop, 6 B. 4 Aid. 149.

EQUITABLE OONSTRXJCTION.

457

m^ht be disposed of by an unattested Will ; it
being held that, if not valid ad a devise, the Will
nevertheless bound the executor as a direction for
the disposition of the stock (a).

This principle of Equitable Construction has,
however, fallen into discredit, though sometimes
sought to be revived under the new name of
Legislation by Construction (i). It was con-
demned, indeed, by Lord Bacon, who delared
that non eat interprefaiio, sed divinatio, quae recedit a
lUer&(c); Lord Tenderden lamented it(d), and
pronounced it dangerous (e) ; and it may now be
considered as altogether discarded as regards the
oonstmotion of most modem statutes ( /). Statutes
are now to be considered as framed with a view
to equitable as well as legal doctrines (^), For
instance, the fact that an execution creditor had
notice, when his debt was contracted, that his

(a) JBiptq, T. Waiarmyrth, 7 Vas. 440; FraMin v. Bant of
ajJairf, 33 B. B. 611.

(») P«f WiUiams J., Be Engliih, ScotfUk <fc AuHralian Banh,
62 L. J. Oh. 828.

(e) Adv. of Learning.

(<0 B. V. Twrven, 9 B. & Aid. 520.

(•) Bra»dU»g v. Bomnytoi, 6 B. & C. 475.

(/) See par Jessel M.B., WdUm, £iep. (1881), 17 Oh. D. 750
See also mi v. Wat India Dock Go. (1884), 9 A. 0., Cairns Ld..
»t p. 456 ; and IrUik Land Commutum v. Brown, ri9041 2 Ir. S
300, at p. 211.

(j) Per James L J. and Mellish I,.J., 2 Oh. D. 296, 397.

468

INTEBl'KETATION OF STATUTES.

M

'-i! '

debtor had given a bill of sale to another person
which was not registered, was held not to prevent
the execution creditor from availing himself of the
non-registration (a).

Where, indeed, a modern statute is strictly [h)
in pari materiA with one which has already received
an equitable construction, that construction is
extended to it on the general principle that they
form together one body of law, and are to be con-
strued together (c). Thus, s. 3, 3 & 4 Will. IV.
0. 42, which limits the time for bringing actions
on bonds and other specialties to 20 years (now 12
years) {d), in language identical with that used in
s. 3, 21 Jao. c. 16, respecting simple contract
debts, received the same equitable construction as
had been given to the last-named Act ; and the
administrator of the obligor of a bond which had
been put in suit in 1831, in which year the action
abated by the death of the obligor, was held to be
liable to be sued in 1858, within a year from the
grant of letters of administration («).

It may not be out of place to mention here that

(a) Bdwardt v. Edvardt, 2 Oh. D. 291.

(6) Comp. Adam V. InkdbilatUs of Brittol, 2 A. & B. 389.

(c) Sup. p. 54 et >eq.

(d) 37 & 38 Viot. o. 57, B. 1.

(«) Stmrgu t. Darell, 29 L. J. Ex. 572 ; and see as to vben
time, under the statute, begins to run, Wakefield ^e. Bank v.
Tate,, [1916] 1 Oh. 452.

STATUTES OONTRABT TO EQUITY OR REASON. 459

the expression " the Equity of a Statute " is some-
times used as meaning the principle or ground
of a rule adopted from analogy to a statute. For
instance, 6 Bich. II. (a), which provided that a writ
should ahate, if the declaration showed that the
contract sued' upon was made in a different county
from that mentioned in the writ, is said to have
led (hy the equity of that statute, or the analogy
which it furnished) to the introduction by the
judges, in the reign of James I., of the practice of
changing the venue on motion, where there was
no variance between the writ and declaration as
to the place where the cause of action arose {b).

It was formerly asserted that a statute contrary
to natural equity or reason (such as one which
made a man a judge in his own case), or contrary
to Magna Charta, was void ; for, it vras said, jura
naturm sunt immutalnlia ; they are leges legirni ; and
au Act of Parliament can do no wrong (c). But
such dicta cannot be supported. They stand as a

{a) Bepealed 42 & 43 Viot. o. S9.

(6) Knight v. fonwjy, 2 Balk. 670 ; Craft v. Boitt, 1 Saund.
247; Tidd. Pr. 0. 24.

(c) Bmkam't date, 8 Bep. 118a ; City of London T. Wood, 12
Mod. 687 ; Day v. Savadge, Hob. 87 ; Mercer' t Co. v. Boaker, 1
Stra. 639 ; 3 Inst. 111. So enacted as to Magna Ohaita by 42
Kdw. III. 0. 1, Oo. Litt. 81a. As to taking away the Boyal power,
em per Finoh OJ., B. v. Bampden (Ship Money), 3 State Trials
1235.

■t^ll

460

IMTEBPBISTATION OF STATUTES.

;li|i '.( J!

beacon to be avoided, rather than as an authority
to be followed (a).

The law on this snbject cannot be better laid
down than in the following words of a great
American authority : " It is a principle in the
English law that an Act of Parliament, delivered
in clear and intelligible terms, cannot be ques-
tioned, or its authority controlled, in any court of
justice. 'It is,' says Sir W. Blaokstone, 'the
exercise of the highest authority that the kingdom
acknowledges upon earth.' When it is said in the
boolis that a statute contrary to natural equity
and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be per-
formed, is void, the oases are understood to mean
that the Courts are to give the statute a reason-
able construction. They will not readily presume,
out of respect and duty to the lawgiver, that any
very unjust or absard consequence was within the
contemplation of the law. But if it should happen
to be too palpabL" in its direction to admit of but
one construction, there is no doubt, in the English
law, as to the binding efficacy of the statute. The
will of the Legislature is the supreme law of the
land, and demands perfect obedience.

" But while we admit this conclusion of the
English law, we cannot but admire the intrepidity
and powerful sense of justice which led Lord Coke,

(o) See per Willes, J., Lee v. Bude B. Co. (1871), L. B. 6 C. P.
583.

STATUTES CONTBARY TO EQUITY OB SEASON. 461

when Chief Justice of the King's Benoh, to declaie,
as he did in Doctor Bonham's Case, that the Com-
mon Law doth control Acts of Parliament, and
adjudges them void when against common right
and reason. The same sense of justice and
freedom of opinion led Lord Chief Justice Hobart,
in Day v. Savadge, to insist that an Act of ParUa-
ment made against natural equity, as to make a
man judge in his own case, was void ; and induced
Lord Chief Justice Holt to say in the case of the
City of London ▼. Wood, that the observation of
Lord Coke was not extravagant, but was a very
reasonable and true saying. Perhaps what Lord
Coke said in his reports ou this point may have
been one of the many things that King James
alluded to, when he said that in Coke's reports
there were many dangerous conceits of his own
uttered for law, to the prejudice of the Crown,
Parliament, and subjects " (a).

(a) 1 Kent, Oomm. 417.

■ :

MI-

CHAPTER X.

SECTION 1. — OONSTBUOTION OF PENAL LAWS.

Tbe role which requires that penal and Bome
other statutes shall be oonstmed strictly was mote
rigorously applied in former times, when the
number of capital ofEences \tM very large (o);
when it was still punishable with death to cut
down a cherry-tree in an orchard, or to be seen
for a month in the company of gipsies (b), or for a
soldier or sailor to beg and wander without a pass.
Invoked in the majority of oases in favorem vita,
it has lost much of its force and importance in
recent times, and it is now recognised that the
paramount duty of the judicial interpreter is to

(a) " Frerioas to the Bevolntion, the nnmber on the Statute
Book is said not to have exoeeded 50. During the reign o!
George n., 63 new ones were added. In 1770 the number
was estimated in Parliament at 154 (Cavendish Debates ii. 12),
but by Blaokstone (Oomm. iv. 18) at 160; and Bomilly, m
a pamphlet whioh he wrote in 1786 (Observations on a late
publication entitled 'Thoughts on Executive Qovemment,'
London), observed that in the sixteen years since the appear
anoe of Blackstone's Oommentaries it had considerably in-
creased." Ijeoky, History of England, vi. 216.

(6) 4 Bl. Clomm. 4.

I -i

C0N8TBUCT10N OF PENAL LAWS.

463

put upon the language of the Legislature, honestly
and faithfully, its plain and rational meaning, and
to promote its object. " I cannot concur in the
contention that because these Acts (against
adulteration) impose penalties, therefore their
construction should, necessarily, be strict. I think
that neither greater nor less strictness should be
applied to those than to other statutes " (a).

It was founded, however, on the tenderness of
the law for the rights of individuals, and on the
sound principle that it is for the Legislature,
not the Court, to define a crime and ordain its
punishment (6). It is unquestionably a reasonable
expectation that, when the former intends the
infliction of suffering, or an encroachment on
natural liberty or rights, or the grant of excep-
tional exemptions, powers, and privileges, it will
not leave its intention to be gathered by mere
doubtful inference, or convey it in "cloudy and
dark words" only(c), but will manifest it with
reasonable clearness. The role of strict construc-
tion does not, indeed, require or sanction that
suspicious scrutiny of the words, or those hostile
conclusions from their ambiguity or from what is
left unexpressed, which characterise the judicial
interpretation of affidavits in support of ex parte

(a) Per Day J., Newby v. Sivu (1894), 63 h. J. M. C. 229.
(6) U. S. V. Wailmrger, 5 Wheat. 95.
(c) 4 Inst. 332.

. i

1

1

) : ( •

1

1

i

464

INTBRPRBTATIOS OF STAXnTKB.

applioations (a), or of magistrates' oonvictionB,
where the ambiguity goes to the jnriBdiotion (6).
Nor does it allow the imposition of a restricted
meaning on the words, wherever any doubt can
be suggested, for the purpose of withdrawing from
the operation of the statute a case which falls
both within its scope and the fair senne of its
language. This would be to defeat, not to
promote, the object of the Legislature (c) ; to
misread the statute and misunderstand its pur-
pose (d). A Court is not at liberty to put limita-
tions on general words which are not called for
by the sense, or the objects, or the mischiefs of
the enactment («) ; and no construction is admis-
sible which would sanction a fraudulent evasion
of an Act (/). But the rule of strict construction

(a) Sea ax gr. P<rb v. SaMrn, 7 But, 194 ; iVwie t. Pooh, 9
B. & 0. S43.

(6) Sae £.▼. Datii,39 B.B.66S; it. v. /mm, 13 A. & E.684;
par Coleridge J., it. t. Tote, 8 A. & B. 337 ; par Our., Lmdtay
T. Leigi, 17 L. J. M. 0. 60; B. v. Stew^artt, 17 L. J. M. C. 25;
lUleher v. CaHknp (1846), 14 L. J. M. 0. 49. Note B. v.
Wetlem (1868), J. F. 390, as to extent of power of amendment
in oases where the variance is not material.

(e) Bac. Ab. Stat. (I.) 9 ; B. v. BodmeU, 1 T. B. 101.

(d) Per Martin B., IfUskohon t. Fieldt, 31 L. J. Ex. 336, and
Bramwell B., FdUf v. Fhleher, 3 H. 4 N. 781.

(«) U. S. V. Ooombi, 13 Peters, 80.

(/) Oom. Dig. Pari. (R.) 38 ; Bao. Ab. Stat. (I.) 9 ; BritUm v.
Ward, 2 Bol. 127. Per Our., U. S. v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 95 ;
U. S. V. Oooding, 12 Wheat. 460 ; American Fur Co. v. U. S., 2

OONBTBOOTION OF PENAL LAWa

465

requires that the language shall be so construed
that no cases sfaaU be held to fall within it which
do not fall both within the reasonable meaning of
its terms and within the spirit and scope of the
enactment (a). Where an enactment may entail
penal consequences, no violence must be done to
its language in order to bring people within it, but
rather care must be taken that no one is brought
within it who is not within its express language (A),
To determine that a case is within the intention of
a statute, its language must authorise the Court
to say so; but it is not admissible to carry the
principle that a case which is within the mischief
of a statute is within its provisions, so far as
to punish a crime not specified in the statute,
because it is of equal atrocity or of a kindred
character with those which are enumerated (c).
If the Legislature has not used words sufSciently
comprehensive to include within its prohibition

Peten, 367 ; U. 8. v. CoomU, 12 Peters, 80 ; V. 8. v. BartmU, 6
Wallace, 395. See sup. Chap. IV.

(<■) Ptr Best C.J.,' Fletcher v. Sondes, 3 Bing. 580; Braey's
Cm, 1 Balk. 348 ; B. v. Barvey, 1 Wils. 164 ; Doi.« v. Painter.
Preem. K. B. 175; 8eott v. Pacquet, 36 L. J. P. 0. 66; Ellu v.
M'Cormiei, h. B. 4 Q. B. 271 ; Tke Oaunllet. L. B. 4 P. 0. 191,
per James L.J.; per Lord Alverstone C.J., B. v. South Shields
Uceniing Justices (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 810.

(b) Per Wright J., London C. C. v. Aylesbury Co., [18981 1
Q. B. 106. . » . I J

M U. S. V. Wiliberger, 8 V/btaL 96.

1.8. 30

4M IMTMPBrTATIOS 0» STATOTW.

all the case, which faU withm the «'i«'Wef in-
tended to be prevented, it i. not competent to
a Court to extend them (a). It i. immaterial for
tins IpoBe, whether the proceeding prescnbed
5^ th^SorUment of the penal law be cnmmal

°'Sf degree of Btrictness applied to the con-
rt^tion of a penal statute depended to grea
Gallon the severity of the statute When .t
re^rimposed a pecuniae penalty ^t was con-
Btrued less strictly than where the nile was
t^eiinfavaremvU.. Formerly, an mdictmen
Sr the capital felony of assaulting » Pe"'^'* or
certain time and pla^e, and feloniously cuttmg o
feloZusly robbing him. was fatally bad. because
t Td not allege that the cutting or the robbing
Irdone "then and there"; while a simUar
^Bsion in an indictment for the -^demean "
^f a common assault was considered ™*«"f <!>•
Lrd Hale mentions that a statute of Edward VI.,

(„) P„ Lord ToBterden. Pr<^v. '--"^f f^' 'J,;^
Aid. U5 : »nd see BoWiiw. v. Emer«>n (1866), 4 ti. « i^- « ■

(b) Bonder^m v. S»erI>oni«, 3 M. & W- .sod,
FieL. 31 L. J. Ex. 236; FUUher ^.Bud^, 7 Q. B. D. 611,
The BoKna, 1 GalliBOn, 83, per Btory J. ., g

M Q Hale 178 ; B. v. Ba«de. Cro. Jao. 41 ; «• v. fVa«««,
S^ 1015 s"b. v. no^o. (1878), 44 L. J. M. 0. 42, wh,»
stowB Zt Bave by express statutory provision an mdictment
or 7e onVwUl not Jupp^rt a convietion for misdemeanour.

r (I

0ON8TBUCTIOS OF PENAL LAWS. 467

which made the stealing of horses, in the plural,
a capital offence, gave rise to a doubt, which it
was thought necessary to remove by enactment
in the following session of Parliament, whether
it included the theft of one horse only ; the doubt
resting on the slender foundation that an earlier
Act spoke of steaUng " -ny horse," in the singular
number (a), Perhaps the same spirit may be
found in the more modern decisions, that a Court
was not bound to kno v that a colt was a horse,
in an Act against hokje-stealing(6) ; or that a
pig was a "hog" in an Act against hog-steal-
ing (c); and that an enactment which made it
a felony to " stab, cut, or wound," did not reach
the case of biting off a nose or a finger, because
the injury thus inflicted was not caused by an
instrument (rf) ; nor that of breaking a collar-bone,
when the skin was not also broken (e).
A strict construction requires, at least, that no

(o) a Halo, 368, inf. pp. 570-871; 1 Edw. VI. o. 12. Camp.
B. T. Smlandt, 8 Q. B. D. 530, as to defrauding " creditors "
when one only is defrauded.

(h) B. T. Beaney, Buss. & By. 416. Comp. B. v. Wdknul,
Bubs. & By. 194.

(c) V. S. T. McLain, 2 Brev. 443 (Tennessee).

(d) B. V. Stevmt, 1 Moo. 0. 0. 409 ; B. v. Barrit, 7 C. & P.
446 ; B. y. Jeans, 1 C. & K. 539. Comp. B. v. Shadholl, 5 C.
* P. 504 ; JS. V. Ehntln, 2 Lew. 126 ; B. v. WaUham, 3 Cox C. 0.
442 ; B. V. (hcem, 1 Moo. C. C. 205.

(f) R. V. Waal, 4 C. & P. 381.

4W

INTIRPBBTATION OF BTATBTM.

case ahall fall within a penal atatnte which doeB
not comprise all the elements which, whether
morally material or not, are in fact made to con-
stitute the offence as defined hy the statato.
Thus, the Coventry Act, 22 dB 23 Car. II. (repealed
9 Geo. IV. 0. 31), which made capital the inflic-
tion, with malice aforethought " and by lying in
wait," of a variety of disfiguring or disabling bodily
iiguries, was held not to include any such outrage,
however malicious and deliberate, when not pre-
ceded by a lying-in-wait with the intent of com-
mitting it (a). And it was much doubted whether
a person who inflicted such injuries with intent to
murder, and not merely to maim and disfigure, fell
within the Act (b). If a pirate attacks a vessel,
but, instead of taking her, extorts from her master
a promise to pay a sum for her redemption, uo
piracy would be oommitted, for there was no
taking (c). The Riot Act, 1 Geo. I. Stat 2,
c. 6, 8. 1, which makes it felony for rioters to
remain Msembled for more than an hour after
the proclamation set forth in the Act has been

(a) 1 East, P. 0. 898 ; B. v. ChUd, 4 C. & P. 442. Omp. sup.
p. 364.

(i) So hsld per Lord King and Yates J. in B. v. Cfcie, 1 Kast,
P. 0. 400 ; dubit. Willea J. and Eyra B. See also B. v. WiUiam,
Id. 424.

(c) Molloy, 64, b. 18. For a definition of this offence, see
A.-G. {Hmij Kong) v. Kaok-a-Sin^, 42 h. 3. P. C. 64.

OOlMTBUCnO!! OF PRWAI. LAW*. 460

in«de, Med of effect if the proclamation wo. not
made folly and aoourately ; as if, for example, the
final word., " God save the King," were ,. utted (a).
A penon cannot be convicted of i>. -riy if ':,e
oath waa administered by one whr ■,,' ,ot l„,'nl
authority to administer it, as in u. o. •• - ol au
affidaTit in the Admiralty swo-.-n i . r,rp h Ma. to-
rn Chancery, though the Adm irJty t, .. i^ r,„
habit of admitting affidavits ao . yon, (i . The
statute which imposes a penalty wheie ^aoV .f
coal upon being weighed shaU be fo.i:,r. .,iicie„i
m weight of coal, and prescribes that, in the
weighing, the sacks are to be weighed both with
and without the coals therein, is not complied
with by putting the full sacks successively into
one scale, and an empty sack with the weights
which the coal in each should weigh in the other,
and consequently the penalty has been held not
recoverable by the buyer in such a oa8e(c)j the
precise procedure indicated by the statute not
having been followed.

An enactment which made it a misdemeanour
on the part of a bankrupt to commit certain acts
withm four months next before " the presentation

(a) B. V. Child (1880). 4 C. & P. 442. See B. v. Wookoci, 5
C. & p. 516.

(6) B. V. Sknu, 23 L. J. M. 0. 14.

(.) 1 & 2 Will. IV. 0. Ixxvi. 8. 57 ; Meredith v. Bolmmam).
16 L. J, Ex. 136 ; Smith t. Wood (1839), 59 L. J. Q. B. 5

|r'4

470

INTEBPBBTATIOK OF STATUTES.

of a bankruptcy petition against him," did not
have that effect where the petition was presented
by the bankrupt himself (o). An Act which made
it penal to personate " any person entitled to
vote " would not be violated by personating a
dead voter (6). A penalty imposed on a man who
ran away, leaving his wife and children chargeable,
or whereby they became chargeable, would not
be incurred by his simple desertion, without the
intent that his family should become chargeable
to the parish (c). Nor was at one time a husband
liable to conviction for refusing to maintain his
wife, when she refused to live with him, though
her refusal was owing to his iQ-treatment (d). A
gamekeeper who kills wild rabbits in his master's
woods which it was his duty to protect, and takes
them away at once and sells them, is not guilty of

(o) 3Si & 33 Viot. o. 62, s. 11 ; Be Burden, 31 Q. B. D. 24.
But see now 4 & S Oeo. V. o. 59, s. 154, which inoreaeea the
period to six months.

(h) Whiteley V. Chappell, 38 h. J. M. C. 51. See also B. v.
£roim, 2 East, P. 0. 1007. As to existing law, see Corrnpt
Practices Act, 1883, s. 3, and Ballot Act, 1873, B. 24, which
•voids this anomaly.

(c) Beeve v. Teatet (1862), 31 L. J. M. 0. 241 ; Sweeno/ v.
Spooner (1863), 33 L. J. M. 0. 82. See also Bealh v. Eeape, 26
L. J. M. 0. 49.

(d) t^amigan v. Biahopwearmouth, 27 L. J. M. 0. 46. See
Pape V. Pape, 30 Q. B. D. 76. But see Summary Jurisdiction
(Married Women) Act, 1896 (58 & 59 Viot. o. 39).

0ON8TEDCTION OF PENAL LAWB.

471

embeazling the rabbits, for he did not get posses-
sion of them " for or on account of" his master (a).
A statute which imposed a penalty on an un-
qualified person who, either in his own or another's
name, did any act appertaining to the office of
proctor for fee or reward, would not apply to mere
agents, or to acts which, though usually performed
by proctors, were not of strict right incident to
their office; such as preparing the documents
necessary for obtaining letters of administration,
where there was no contest (5). An Act which
punishes the obtaining, with intent to defraud, any
" chattel, money, or valuable security " by a false
pretence is not violated by obtaining " credit on
account," by a false pretence (c) ; nor by obtaining
a dog by a false pretence, for a dog is not a chattel
which is the subject of larceny at common law {d).

(a) B. V. Bead (1878), 3 Q. B. D. 131 ; 47 L. J. M. C. 50.

(t) 23 & 24 Viot. 0. 127, B. 26 (1) ; SUphemon v. Siggintcn
(1881), 3 H. L. 0»8. 638 ; Late Socy. v. Siau: (1882), 9 Q. B. D. 1.

(«) 24 & 26 Viot. 0. 96, s. 88 ; B. v. Wavell, 1 Moo. C. C. 224.
Probably, however, the offender would oome within the mis-
chief of 8. 13 of 32 & S3 Viot. o. 62. See Beg. v. /one. (1897)
67 L. J. Q. B. 41. '

(d) B. V. Bobitum, 28 L. J. M. C. 58. But " chattels " includes
ohoses in action, such as shares in a joint-stook company,
Bobintm v. Jeniimi, 24 Q. B. D. 275 ; and a dog may be " goods,"
«. V. made, 21 Q. B. D. 433. By 24 & 26 Viot. o. 96, s. 18,
dog stealing is made a criminal offence. See " Chattel's," and
'■ Goods and Chattels," Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and Supp.

472

INTEBFBETATION OF STATUTES.

lii:; ■

An agent entnu^ted with money to invest on mort-
gage is not liable to conviction for embezzling it,
as entrusted to him " for saife custody " (a). The
forging of an indorsement on a doooment in the
form of a bill of exchange, but having no drawer's
name thereon, would not be a forging of au
indorsement on a bill of exohaug 3 (b).

Obtaining from the correspondent of a banker a
sum of money on a cheque drawn in favour of the
correspondent on the banker, on whom the drawer
falsely pretended he had authority to draw, would
not be au attempt to obtain money from the
banker by false pretences. If the correspondent
were to obtain the money from the banker, it
would not be obtained by the authority of the
drawer of the cheque; nor, presumably, by his
wish, for he would gain nothing by it(c). It
might, however, constitute a misdemeanour within
the meamng of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 62, s. 13 {l)(d).
See also I.aroeny Act, 1916. The provision of the
Sheriffs Act, 1887, which imposes a penalty on
any sherifiTs officer who "takes or demands any
money or reward under any pretext whatever,"
other than the fees or sums allowed by that or any

(a) 24 & as Viot. o. 96, s. 76 ; B. v. Ifevmm, 8 Q. B. D. 70C.
(ft) B. V. Barper, 7 Q. B. D. 78. Comp. B. v. Bouerman,
[1891] 1 Q. B. 112.
(e) B. V. Oarrett, 23 L. J. M. C. 20.
(d) And Bee 8. 32 of the Larceny Act, 1916.

CON8TBU0TI0N OP PBNAL LAWS.

473

other Act, would not apply to a claim for charges
disallowed on taxation; as the claim must be
taken to have been a demand for such items of
the charges as should be allowed on taxation (a).
Moreover, the penalty is inflicted for the doing
of an act in the nature of a criminal offence, and
to constitute such an offence there should be
mens rea, and consequently, he is not liable to a
penalty for a mere mistake (b).

The Act which punishes the administration of a
noxious drug would not include a substance which
is not in itself poisonous but noxious only when
given in excess, as cantharides (c). A provision
which prohibits unloading coal across a footway
does not apply to coke (d).

It was held that the Act which imposes a penalty
for "baiting" animals did not apply to setting
dogs in pursuit of rabbits in a small enclosed
space of 3 or 4 acres, from which the rabbits
could not escape; the word "baiting" being, if
not etymologically at least popularly, confined to

i ^

1 ■• ■

■If I

(o) 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 55, s. 20 (2 4) ; Wmlforce, Tnutee v. Lnv.
[1892] 1 Q. B. 772.

{b) Ue y. Dangar, [1892] 2 Q. B. 337. As to mm rea, see
sup. p. 177 e< ttq.

(<:) n. V. Hmnah (1877), 13 Cox C. C. 547. Comp. It v.
ITifcoB, inf. p. 490.

(d) 30 & 31 Vict, 0. 134, s. 5 ; Fhtcher v. FieU,, [18911 1
Q.B. 790.

474

ISTERPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

attacks on animals tied to a stake (a). Probably,
however, it might come within the mischief cod-
templated by 1 & 2 Geo. V. o. 27. Again, it has
been held that a person is not guilty of "fre-
quenting " a street with intent to commit a felony,
in the absence of evidence that he had been there
more than once (i). Also it has been decided that
a person charged under 55 Geo. III. c. 194, s, 20,
with acting and practising as an apothecary is not
amenable to more than one penalty although it
was proved he. had supplied medicine to several
persons on the same day (c). An article kept ready
for use in a back room or cellar is not " exposed
for sale" within s. 6, Margarine Act, 1887((/). A

(a) PiUt V. Millar, L. B. 9 Q. B. 380. As to "domestic
animal " under the Cruelty to Animals Acts, 1849 and 18S4 (12
& 13 Viot. 0. 92 and 17 & 18 Viet. o. 60), see Tales v. Eiggim,
65 L. J. M. C. 31, and oases therein cited. See further, Bridge v.
PartoM, 33 L. .1. U. C. 9S ; AlUn v. Small, [1904] 2 1. B. 70S ; but
see JohntUme v. Jhererombie, 30 So. L. B. 260. See also Swaii v.
SanrUm, 50 L. J. M. C. 67 ; Filbum v. People's Palace Co., 59
L. J. Q. B. 471.

(6) 5 Geo. IV. c. 83, s. 4 (amended by 34 & 35 Vict. c. 112,
8. 15) ; GInrk v. B., 14 Q. B. D. 92 ; but see Lang v. Walker, 40
So. L. B. 284 ; Davit v. Jeatu, 41 So. L. B. 426 ; and see Pohilon
V. HiU, 12 Q. B. D. 306, as to ' vandering abroad to beg and
gather alms " within s. 3 of same / >t.

(r) Afotheearies Co. v. Jonee, [18!<3] 1 Q. B. 89. See also
Oreig v. Bendeno, sup. p. 81.

(d) 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 29, modified by 62 & 63 Vict. s. 27, and
Schedule, and see 1 Edvv. VII. c. 21 ; Crane v. Lawrence (1890),

CONSTRUCTION OF PBNAL LAWS. 475

person found on premises for an immoral purpose
mToWng no breach of Hob criminal law, does not
faU under the penalty imposed for being found
on premises " for an unlawful purpose " (a). Nor
would a man who obtained a license to retaU
beer, by means of a cwtificate that he was "a
person of good character," be liable to conviction
for using a certificate which he knew to be false,
merely because he cohabited with a woman with-
out being married to her (i).

The Metropohs Management Amendment Act,
1862, in incorporating the powers for the " sup-
pression" of nuisances, conferred by an earUer
locd Act, which contained, besides several pro-
visions for getting rid of existing nuisances, a
prohibition against keeping pigs, was held not
to have comprised this last provision, as the effect
of It was, not to "suppress," but to prevent the
creation of nuisances (c). Where a local Act, after

59 L. J. M. C. 110. Oomp. Wheat v. Broton (1892), 61 L. J. M C
94. See also Barlm v. Tenett. 60 L. J. M. 0. 104, followed in
M V. McPhail, U L. J. K. B. 458. See farther, Bobb. v
W,«che,ter, 79 L. J. K. B. 1123. Apparently seUing margarine
spread on bread in an eating house is not " exposing for sale "
withm the meaning o£ the Act, Moore v. Pearces Dininq £c
BoOTM (1896), 65 L. J. M. C. 7.

(a) 6 Geo. IV. o. 83 ; Hayen v. Steveman, 3 L. T. N. S. 296.

(ft) Leadtr v. Yell, 33 L. J. M. C. 231.

{<:) Chehea Veilry v. King, 34 L. J. M. C. 9. See G. W. % Co
V. Bishop (1873), L. B. 7 Q. B. 550; 41 L. J. M. C. 120.

nil

476

INTBBPRBTATION OF STATUTI8.

providing, by one aeotion, that tmy straotnre, bnilt
or rebqilt, except on the site of a former dwelling,
should not be " used " as a dwelling, unless there
was an open space of 20 feet in front of it, without
the previous consent of the local board, imposed,
by another, a penalty if any building or work were
"made or suffered to continue" contrary to the
providons of the Act; the Court refosed to
construe the. latter section as including the
offences prohibited in the former, though the
effect of the decision was to leave them without
specific provision for their punishment (a).

On the ground that an enactment giving a
power of committal for non-payment of a debt
is a highly penal one, it was held that s. 5 (2),
Debtors Act, 1869, which gives such a power in
the case of default made by any person in pay-
ment of any " debt due from him " in pnnuance
of a judgment, did not apply to the case of a
judgment debt with execution limited to the
separate property of a married woman, which
could not properly be described as a " debt due
from her," upon the strict construction which
such a section required (6). And it has been held

(a) PeartoH v. Hutt (1866), 36 L. J. M. C. 36, diss. Martin B.
See another example in BUM v. Majmdie (1872), L. B. 7 Q. B.
439.

(h) 32 i. 33 Vict. c. 62; Seott v. Moiiey, 20 Q. B. D. 120.
See also aardiner. Be, 20 Q. B. D. 249. Bat see as to who is

OONHTBUOTION or PENAL LAWS.

477

that a garnishee order ahsolate is not a "final
jadgment " against the garnishee within s. 4 (1 g),
Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (repealed and re-enaoted
hy s. 1 (y), 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. S9) ; for the words
"final jadgment" have a proper professional
meaning, and when found in a section of an Act
which is defining acts of bankruptcy should be
construed as strictly as if they occurred in a section
defining a misdemeanour, because the commission
of an act of bankruptcy entails disabilities on the
person who commits it (a).

Again, as illustrative of the rule of strict con-
struction, it has been said that while remedial
laws may extend to new things not in es.te at the
time of making the statute (i), penal laws may
not. Thus, the 31 Eliz. c. 12 (repealed by 7 & 8
Geo. rV. 0. 27, s. 1), which took away the benefit
of clergy from accessories after, as well as before,
the fact was held not to extend to accessories
made by subsequent enactment. The receiver,
therefore, of a stolen horse, who was made an

" a debtor " within the meaning of the Bankmptcy Act, 1914
3. 1 (3) of that Btntute.

(o) Chinery, Exp., 12 Q. B. D. 342. See also ScKmitz, Exp.,
12 Q. B. D. 511 ; Whimtey, Exp., 1.3 Q. B. D. 476 ; Sendernn,
Be, 57 h. J. Q. B. 258 ; Letter, Exp., 62 L. J. Q. B. 372.

(6) 2 Inst. 35 ; per Our., Daaeg v. Pointer, Freeman K. B,
175. Si^ 1^. 464, 465.

478

INTEBPBBTATION OV STATUTES.

aooesBory by a later statate, was held not ousted (a).
Where one Act (34 & 26 Viot. o. 96, s. 91) (6),
made it k'..mj to receive, with gnilty knowledge,
a chattel, tV stealing of which was felony either
at commo i riw or under that Act ; and a sub-
sequent 0 V) made a partner who stole partnership
property liable to conviction for the stealing, as
though he had not been a partner; it was held
that to receive such stolen property was not an
ofienoe under the earlier Act (e).

The Act to prevent Stock Jobbing, which, after
referring, in the preamble, to the great incon-
veniences which had arisen, and daily arose, by
the wicked practice of stock jobbing — diverting
men from their ordinary pursuits, mining famiUes,
discouraging industry, and injuring commerce —
declared void all such contracts "in any public
or joint stock, or other public securities what-
soever," was held, notwithstanding the mischief
in view, and the wide terms used, not to apply
to transactions in foreign funds (d) or in railway

(o) Fost. Or. L. 372.

(6) Seo. 91 repealed by 6 & 7 Geo. V. o. 60, s. 48 and Sohed.

(c) 31 & 32 Viet. o. 116, s. 1 (repealed by e. 48 and Sohed.,
6 & 7 Geo. V. 50, which see) ; B. v. Smitk, 39 L. J. M. C. 112 ;
B. V. Slreeter, [1900] 2 Q. B. 601.

(d) 7 Geo. II. 0. 8, repealed by 23 & 24 Viot o. 28 ; Hefideriou
V. Bite, 3 Stark. 158; WelU v. Porter, 2 Bing. N. C. 722.
Comp. Smith v. Undo, 27 L. J. C. P. 196, 335.

CON8TBU0TION OF PENAL LAWS.

479

shares (a), on the ground that the former were
not dealt in, and the latter were not known, in
England, when the Act was passed.

Bnt this degree of strictness may be regarded
as extreme. It could hardly be contended that
printing a treasonable pamphlet was not an offence
against the st,4ate of Edw. III., because printing
was not invented until a century after it was
passed ; or that it would not be treason to shoot
the King with a pistol, or poison him with an
American drug (6). Sec. 2, 66 Geo. III. c. 58(c),
which enacted that no brewer or dealer in beer
shall have, or put into beer, any liquor for darken-
ing its colour, or use molasses or any preparation
in lien of malt and hops, under a penalty of £200,
was held not to be confined to such dealers as
were known at the time when the Act was passed,
viz., licensed victuallers, licensed by a magistrate
under the Act of 6 & 6 Edw. VI. o. 25 ; but to
include the retailer of beer furnished with an excise
license, who first came into legal existence under
the 1 Wm. IV. c. 64 (d). So s. 18, Game Act,
1831 (1 & 2 Will. IV. 0. 32), authorising justices
to license any householder to sell game, who is

(o) Hemtt V. Price 11 h. J. C. P. 292. Comp. Copeland,
Exp., inf. p. 494.
(b) Hallam, Const. Hist. o. 15.
(e) Repealed 48 & 49 \ lot. e. 51, s. 10.
(d) A.-G. V. Lxlmood, 9 M. & W. 378.

480

INTIRPBETATIOM OF RATUm.

not lioenied to Bell beer by retul, inolndes not
onlj honieholden licensed under 1 Will. IV. c. 64,
bnt also tbose who hold an " additional " lioenBe
under b. 1, Revenue Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict.
c. 88) (a). The 8 Anne, o. 7, which enacted that
if any Bort of prohibited goods should be landed
without payment of duty, the offender should
forfeit treble value, was held to extend to gloves,
which were not prohibited until the 6 Geo. III. (6),
A market Act which prohibited the sale of pro-
visions in any part of the town but the market-
place, would extend to parts of the town built
after the Act was passed on what were then
fields (c), and this rule applies in cases where the
old market provides insufficient accommodation (d).
It was held that the repealed («) Engraving
Copyright Act, 1734 (8 Geo. II. c. 13), which im-
posed a penalty for piratically engraving, etching,

(a) SkoObred v. St. Pamsnu Jul. (1890), 31 Q. B. D. 346;
69 L. J. M. C. C3. With legud to the diaputed point as to
whether or not u person owning aeveral Bhopi and selling beer
in one of them oonld hold a license to sell game, see B. v.
Bird amd Other, (1898), 43 Sol. J. 397.

(6) A.-G. v. Sagfen, 1 Price, 182.

(c) CoUier v. Worth, 1 Ex. D. 464. See B. v. Cotth, 30 L. J.
M. 0. 162, and MUton v. Fatenham, 10 B. & S. 648 n.

(d) at. Etulem Bg. Co. v. Ooldmid (1884), 9 App. Cas. 927.

(e) For existing law of Oopyright, see 1 & 3 Geo. V. o. 46,
and for a disquisition thereon, Clerk and Lindsell on Torts,
Chap. XXI.

OOWgTRlJOTIOW OF PEITAL lAWg. 431

or Otherwise, or "in any other manner." copy,
.ng pnnts and engravinge, applied to copying 4
photography, though that proceas was not i/
vented till more than a century after the Act was
passed (a). Bicycles were held to be " carriages "
withm the provision of the Highway Act, 1836
against funoas driving, though not so held for
taxing purposes (A), and trioyles propelled hy
steam to be "locomotives" within the Loco-
motives Act, 1866. though not invented when
those Acts were passed (r). Under an Act which
imposed a penalty for selling bread otherwise than
by weight, except bread "usually sold" under
the denommation of fancy bread, it was held
penal to seU bread which would have faUen
within the exception at the time when the Act
was passed, but which has since ceased to be
sold under the denomination of fancy bread (rf).

(a) Oamiart v. Batt. U 0. B. N. 8. 806. rap. p U6 n
"IT '; ^V"^' ^- «• ^ C. p. 410. Catal<U« and il "^
' '°'' "' ^- ■'■ '•IS; Ahter a copy mode bv a r«Ltij„^ *„■

(4) WiWanu r. Etli, (1880), 49 L. J. M. C 47
W Tajrfo, V. Ooodvnn (1879), 4 Q. B, D. 228- 48 L J M C
r!?<,T,w""r.'l"''* disquUiaon on this case in Sinip^ ,
V. J'T,„i (1881), 7 Q. B. D. 313 ; 60 L. J. Q B 648
W B. V. Wo^. t. E. 4. Q. B. 559. Con.,. AnaM Br^,
'■^- 31

t li 1 1 i

MICIOCOrY HSOiUTION TIST CHART

(ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No, 2)

^U

1^
1 2.0

1.8

mmi^

A APPLIED IIVHGE Ine

^^ 165J East Main Street

Rochester. Ne* Vorti He09 USA
(716) «82 - 0300 - Phone
(716) zaa - 5989 - Fax

482 INTEEPBETATION OP STATUTES.

The general principle now under consideration
is well exemplified by comparing the manner in
which an omission which, it was inferable from
the text, was the resvdt of accident, has been
generally dealt with in penal and in remedial Acts.
Thus, where the owner of mines was jequir^d,
under a penalty, in case (1) of loss of We in the
mine by accident, or (2) of personal injury ansmg
from explosion, ^o send notice of such acciden
to an inspector within 24 hours "from the loss
of life" (omitting the case of personal injury),
the Court refused to supply, in order to make the
defendant liable to a conviction, the, obvious omis-
sion in the latter branch of the sentence, and held
that notice was not necessary when personal mjury
from explosion, short of loss of life, had occurred ;
although the mention of such injury in the earlier
part of the sentence was idle and insensible with-
out such an interpolation (a). Sec. 28, 5 & b
Will IV. c. 63, which empowered inspectors to
examine "weights, measures, andscales,"in shops

and if upon examination it appeared that the
said weights or measures " (omitting scales) were

/, «-«»» /1R731 L B 8 Q. B. 355, in which a conviction by
StLtfe Sitf seelo V. V. Brea. Co. v. «u^ (1896),

'*(i- pS.-« v. Lo.,ri^e, 29 L. J. M. C. 65. Co,,.,.
William V. Evans, inf. p. 497.

CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS. 483

light or unjust, to seize them, was held not to
authonse a seizure of scales (a) (but this decision

'w-n° ^""^^^ ^°°^ ^^'^ (*>)• '^^^ ^^P^f^led Act of
WiUiam IV. relating to Municipal Corporations
after empowering the borough justices to appoint
a c erk to the justices, provided that it should not
be lawful to appoint to that office any alderman or
councillor, and provided that the clerk should not
prosecute any offender committed for trial, enacted
that any person " being an alderman or oounoiUor "
who should act as clerk to the justices, or " shall
otherwise offend in the premises," should forfeit
£100, recoverable by action. This clearly did not
reach a clerk who prosecuted offenders committed
by the justices, if he were not an alderman or
counoiUor; and yet the manifest intention seemed
to be that he should be subje- . to the penalty for
either or both offences, of acting if disqualified,
and of prosecuting. But to effectuate this inten-
tion. It would have been necessary to interpolate
the words " any person who " before « shaU other-
wise offend"; and this the Court refused to do
for the purpose of bringing a person within the
penal enactment (c) ; though also relieving him

(o) Thomat v. Stephenson, 32 L. J, Q. B. 258.
(6) See 41 & 42 Vict. o. 49, s. 48.

(e) Coey.La^ance (1853). 22 L.'j. Q. B. 140. As to erilting
law, see 45 & 40 Vict. o. 50, s. 159. *

484

INTERPRBTATION OF STATUTES.

from indictment (a). So, the Court refused to
supply a casw omissus under the Vaccination
Act, 1871, as it was an enactment creating an
offence (A). If the statutes, in these case", had
been remedial, the omission would probably have
been supplied (c).

The rule of strict construction, however, when-
ever invoked, comes attended with qualifications
and other rales no less important ; and it is by
the light which each contributes that the meaning
must be determined (d). Among them is the rule
that that sense of the words is to be adopted
which best harmonises with the context, and
promotes in the fullest manner the poUcy and
object of the Legislature. The paramount object,
in construing penal as well as other statutes, is to
ascertain the legislative intent ; and +he rule of
strict construction is not violated by permitting
the words to have their full meaning, or the more
extensive of two meanings, when best effectuating
the intention ("). They are, indeed, frequently

(o) Per Coleridge J. See also B. v. Datis, L. E. 1 C. C. R.
272. See National Merc. Bank, Exp., 15 Ch. D. 42, sup. p. 31.

(b) Broadhead v Boldsworlh, 2 Ex. D. 321.

(c) Be Wainearight, 1 PhU. 258, sup. p. 444.

(d) Per Cur., U. S. v. Harlmell, 6 Wallace, 395,
(«) Id. 396.

LIMITATIONS OF THE RULE. 485

taken in the widest sense, sometimes even in a
sense more wide than etymologicaUy belongs or is
popalar y attached to them, in order to carry out
effectnally the legislative intent, or, to use Lord
Coke s words, to suppress the mischief and advance
the remedy (a).

Thus, the Act which makes it felony to set fire
to or damage a ship or vessel (b) has been construed
as including an open boat of 18 feet in length («).
Under the statute which makes it a misdemeanour
knowingly to utter counterfeit coin is included a
genume coin from which the milling has been filed
and replaced by another (d), but, on the other hand,
where there was no evidence of intention to utter
a counterfeit coin made up of two genuine coins
spht and soldered together so as to constitute a
double headed piece, the statute was held inappli-
cable (.). The possession of a die for making a
false stamp, known to be such by its possessor, is,
however innocent his intention, a possession
without lawful excuse" within the Post Office

(o) Beydon'g Case, sup. p. 123.

oth!^ I'" -T" ""''""" ^"^""^ ""y ^'^P 0' bo»t. or any
leo's 7I2 " ^'''*'°'«'^ '" ""vigation: 57 & 58 Vict

(o) Semhle per Patteson J., R. v. Bmner, 4 C. & P 559
C™^^ JV^„„ and Butchineon. E^.. 40 L. J. Q. B. 105; sup!

{d) B. V. Benmm (1879;, 4 Q. B. D. 284

("> It. V. UcMahon (1894), 15 N. S. W. (Law Beports), 131.

486

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

(Protection) Act, 1884(a). Although the Aot
which punishes a man for running away from his
wife and " chUdren," thereby leaving them charge-
able to the parish, applies only to the desertion of
legitimate children, this rests, not on any indis-
position to depart from the strict and narrow
meaning of the word, but on the ground that
the object of tha Legislature was limited to tlie
enforcement of the man's legal obligation, which
did not extend to the support of his illegitimate
children (6). But the statute which made it a
criminal offence to take an unmarried girl from
the possession and against the will of her father
or mother, was held to apply to the case of ii
natural daughter taken from her putative father (c) ;
for the wider construction obviously carried out
more fully the aim and policy of the enactment.
The " taking from the possession " again, in the

(o) 47 & 48 Viet. o. 76, B. 7 (c), repealed by 8 Edw. VII. o. 48,
and re-enaoted by s. 65 (c) of that Act. Aa to the law relating
to the posBesBion of Qertain specified forged dies and seals,
see 3 & 4 Geo. V. c. 27 : Vickent v. Oill, [1896] 2 Q. B. 310.

(h) R. V. Maude (1842), 11 L. J. M. C. 120, on which see jycr
Williams L.J., Woolwich v. Fulham, 75 L. J. K. B. 680, 681;
Wettmiruter v. Gerard, 2 Balst. 346. As to whether or not a man
who runs away from his wife and children, one or more ot
whom is illbritimate, is not guilty of an offence under 5 Geo. IV.
0. 83, 8. 3, see 20 J. P., p. 364.

(c) 24 & 25 Vict. e. 100, s. 55 ; B. v. Comforlli, 2 Stra. 1102.
See also JB. v. Hodnell, 1 T. E. 96.

WIDE MEANINO GIVKN TO WOBDK. 487

same enactment, is construed in the widest sense
implymg neither actual nor constructive force, and
extending to voluntary and temporary elopements
made with the active concurrence of the girl (a)

Lord Coke thought that burglary might be
committed in a church, because a church is the
mansion of God; but Lord Hale thought this
opmion only a quaint turn without any argu-
ment (6). It is now, however, provided by s. 27
of the Larceny Act, 1916 (6 & 7 Geo. V. o. 60)
that to break and enter a place of divine worship
IS a felony exactly analogous in character to the
breakmg and entering of a dwelling-house. The
breaking" required to constitute burglary in-
cludes acts which would not be so designed in
popular language; such as lifting the flap of a
ceUar (c), or pulling down the sash of a window (d)
or raising a latch (e), or even descending a chimney'
for that IS as much closed as the nature of things
permits (/). Lord Hale, who doubted whether tiio

(«) B. yBobiu., 1 C. & K. 456 ; B. v. Ki^, i Cox C. C. 167 ;
By. B^tt, a Cox C. C. 279; B. v. JBinifeW. 22 L. J. M C
115 ; R. V. Timmim (1860), 30 h. J. M. C. 45.

T ^^1 ]^\^- ^ ^<'»«"'«<' Cfe-y. V. »roorf„<,r<J(1872),
h. B. 15 Eq. 159 ; Wright v. IngU. 16 Q B. D. 379

(«) Broum', Cme, 2 Ba8t, P. C. 487 ; R. v. Bu>.dl, 1 Moo. C C
in. Vomp. B. V. Lawrence, 4 C. & P. 231.

(rf) B. V. Baiiieii, Euss. & Ry. 451.

(c) B. V. Jordan, 7 C. & P. 432.

(/> 1 Hawk. c. 38, 8. 4 ; if. v. Brice. Buss. & By. 450.

J

488

INTKRPRETATION OF STATUTES.

latter act was a breaking, was relieved from decidiug
the point in the case before liim, as it was elicited
that some biioks had been loosened in the thief's
descent, which sufficed to constitute a breaking (a).
Indeed, the burglar " breaks " into a house if he
gets admittance by inducing the inmate to open
the door by a trick, as by a pretence of business,
or by raising an alarm of fire (6).

A threatening letter is " sent " when it is
dropped in the way of the person for whom it
is destined, so that he may pick it up (c) ; or is
sent by A. that he may deliver it to B. (d); or
is afiSxed in some place where he would be likely
to see it (e) ; or is placed on a public road near
his house, so that it may, however indirectly,
reach him, which it eventually does after passing
through several hands (/); or perhaps even if it
does not reach the person addressed {g) ; although
in none of these cases would the paper be popularly
said to have been " sent." A person who writes

(a) 1 Hale, 552.

(b) 2 Bast, P. C. 485.

(c) S. V. Jepami, and B. v. IJoi/d (1767), 2 Bast, P. C. 1115,
1122 ; B. V. Wagttaff, Eubb. & By. 398.

(d) B. V. Paddle (1822), K. & B. 484.

(e) B. V. Williatm, 1 Cox C. C. 16.

(/) B. V. Grimwade, 1 Den. 30. See also B. v. Jonet, 5 Cox
C. C. 226.
(g) B. V. Adaitu, 22 Q. B. D. 66.

WIDE MEAXI.VO GIVEN TO WOBM. 489

aud publishes au article in a newspaper, intending
to encourage the murder of another person any-
where, IS guilty of encouraging a person to
murder, though the article is not addressed to
any particular person (a).

To make false signals, aud thereby 'o bring
a tram to a stand on a railway, was held to be
withm the enactment which made it an offence
to "obstruct" a railway (6); and an enactment
which makes it a misdemeanour to do anything
to obstruct an engine or carriage using a railway,
was held to include railways not yet open to
pubhc traffic, and to apply though no engine
or carnage was obstructed (c).

The coUeotion of alms on false and fraudulent
pretences is an " immoral act " within the moaning
of the Clergy Discipline Act, 1892(d), as is also
habitual swearing and ribaldry (e).

A person "suffers" gaming to go on in his
house who purposely abstains from ascertaining,

o^i^KlK^ ^ ^''"- "■ ^°°- '•*>•«■ ^- «»" (1881), 7 Q. B. D.
2i4 ; 50 L. J. M. C. 113 ; B. v. Anmelli (1906), 70 j P i

(b) B. V. Hadjield. L. B. 1 C. 0. E. 253 ; B. v. Bardy, Id. 278

7«"r r'^^'t ;; ^°™"' 1 «• B- D- 'J; -B^'aifc v. Liule.
76 L. J. K. B. 77, with Belt. v. Steven,, 79 L. J. K. B 17 See
««% V. amilh, 12 Q. B. D. 121.

(c) B. V. Bradford, 29 L. J. M. C. 171.

(d) 55 & -,'5 Viot. c. 32. s. 2 ; FUimaurice v. Be,keth, [1904]
A. C. 266. See also Beneficed aerh v. Lee, [1897] A. C. 226

(<■) Monre V. Oxford (Bp.), 'WQV. A. C. 283.

'¥:

M

mak

«■

'W^ 1' TtTT^^H

.shftj-il'i :

J

4M

INTEKPKKTATION Of HTATUTBB.

or purposely goes out of reach of seeiu;; or
hearing it (a) ; and he uses an instrument for the
destruction of game on a Sunday, who sets a
snare on Saturday, and leaves it till Monday (6).

An Act wl oh makes it penal to " administer,"
or "to cause to be taken," a noxious drug to
procure abortion, would be violated by one who
supplied such a drug to a woman, and explained
to her how it was to be taken, and she after-
wards took it accordingly, in his absence (c).
And a man supplies such a drug, "knowing it
to be intended" to procure abortion, if he so
intended it, though the woman did not(d). To
supply beer at a public-house to a drunken man
woiild be to " sell " the liquor to him, although it
was ordered and paid for by a sober companion (t).

(0) SS & 86 Viet. o. 94, s. 17, repealed oy b. 79, LioenBing
(Consolidation) Act, 1910; Bedgate v. T sua, 1 Q. B. D. 89.
Bee Bond v. Emju, 21 Q. B. D. 349 ; and > .mp. Somenet v. Barl,
13 Q. B. D. 360, and aomenet v. Wade, [1894] 1 Q. B. 574 ;
Ma-ey v. Morriu, [1894] 3 Q. B. 412.

(1) Alien V. Tkompton, L. B. 5 Q. B. 336. See aleo Bather
V. Barm, 1 Ex. D. 97.

(c) B. V. Wilton, 26 h. J. M. 0. 18 ; B. v. Famm, D. & B. 164.
Comp. B. V. Bennah, sup. p. 473.

(d) B. V. Eillman, 33 L. J. M. C. 60. Cotup. B. v. Fretmll,
31 L. J. M. C. 145.

(«) 36 & 36 Viot. 0. 94, s. 13, repealed s. 76, Licensing (Con-
solidation) Act, 1910; Scatehard v. Johmon, sup. p. 125. Sec
Plettt V. Campbett, [1895] 2 Q. B. 229, and Badford v. WiWnm
(1914), 78 J. P. 90.

WIUE MEASINU OIVKN TO WOIIIW.

401

A repealed Act (a) *: ", h prohibited under a penalty
" the copying of a p anting" without the owner's
leave was held to reach a photograph of an engrav-
ing which the proprietor of the painting had made
from it {b).

A servant receives money " for or in the name
or on account of his master" within the Act
agai-^st embe7zlement, who, having a cheque
given io him in his own ni*me for his master,
gets it cashed by a person ignorant of the circum-
stances ; for though that person did not pay the
money on account of the master, it was enough
that it was received on his account (c). The Sale
of Food and Drugs Act, 1876, which makbS it
penal to sell an adulterated article "to the
prejudice of the purchaser," would include a sale
to an officer who makes the purchase, not with
his own money or for his own uso, but with the
public money and for the purpose of analysis (rf).

A man who fires from a highway at game, has

(0) For existing law, see Copyright Aot, 1911, and for a dis-
quisition thereon. Clerk and Lindsell od Torts, Chap. XXI.

(1) Beal, Exp., L. B. 3 Q. B 387. Comp. Gambart v. Ball,
sup. p. 181.

(c) B. V. Oale (1876), 2 Q. B. D. 141. Comp. B. v. Bead,
sup. p. 471 ; and see for definition of Larceny, 6 & 7 Geo. V.
c. 50.

(d) Hoyle v. Bikhman, i Q. B. D. 233. See the numerous
cases on this phrase, sub " Prejudice op Purohaseb," In
Stroud's Judicial Dictionary and Supp.

m

402

INTERPRETATION t)K STATUTKB.

trespasiied on the laud of the owner of the soil
ou which the highway runs ; for the right ot
way over the road is only an easement, and if
a man uses it for au unlawful purpose, he beoomusi
s trespasser (a). If he walks with a gun with
intent to kill game, he " uses " the guu for that
purpose without firing, within the statute which
makes using a gun with that intent penal (/') ; and
the offence of " taking" game is complete when
the game is snared, though neither killed nur
removed (c). A " public place," too, has received
a very wide meaning in cases of nuisance (d), and
a workhouse has been held to be a "public
building" within the Factory and Workshop Act,
1891 {«).

A person who pays for goods by a cheque
on a bank where he has no assets is guilty of
" obtaining goods by false pretences " ; for iu

(a) Maftea v. Wardlty, 14 C. B. N. S. 560 ; R. v. Pralt,
4 E. & B. 860 i Harrivm v. Bulland (Duke), [18931 1 Q. B. 112 ;
inf. pp. 646, 647.

(6) 6 Anne o. 14, s. i, repealed by 1 & 2 Will. IV. o. 32, s. 1,
and Bee a. 23 of this latter Act ; B. v. King, 1 Sesa. Ca. SS.
See also U. S. v. Morria, 14 Peters, 464.

(c) 5 Geo. III. c. 14, repealed by 7 & 8 Ueo. IV. o. 27; R-
V. Glover, BuBfl. & By. 269.

(d) See R. v. Thallmm, 33 L. J. M. C. 68. See Golding v.
Stocking, h. B. 4 Q. B. 516 ; Lanijrith v. Anher, 10 Q. B. D. 44.

(e) 1 Edw. VII. 0. 22, s. 149 (1), Sohed. VI., Part 1. clause
30 : Mile End Quardiant v. Hoare, [1903J 2 K. B. 483.

wrou MKAViNo orvKV TO woBrw

4'.I3

giving the cheque he impliedly represents thiit
ho has authority from the bauk to draw it, and
that it is a good and valid order for payment of
the amount (o). If, however, a person at the time
he gives the cheque behoves that it will be paid
on presentation he cannot bo convicted of a false
pretence (h). But, on the other hand, if a person
promise to give (say) £100 on the signature of a
note, there is a. representation of an exisang fact,
viz., that the money was ready on the delivery of
the note (c).

A repealed Act (d) which imposed a penalty on
corn-dealers for omitting to make a return of every
parcel of com bought from them would hi broken,
though the unreturned sales were not t lenced
in writing as required by the Statute of Jj'rauds,
and therefore were not enforceable in a Court of
Justice («).

The enactment which punished with transports,
tion for life every person, whether employed by
the Postmaster-General, or by " any person under
him, or on behalf of the post-office," who stole

(o) B. V. HazeltOH, 44 L. J. M. C. U ; R. v. Porter, 7 C. & P.
829. Comp. B. V. Benton, 77 L. J. K. B. 644.

(b) B. V. Walne (1879), 11 Cox 647, C. C. E.

(c) 24 & 25 Vict. 0. 96, 8. 90 ; s. 90 repealed by 6 i 7 Geo. V.
c. 50, 3. 48 and Sohed. ; B. v. Gordon, 23 Q. B. D. 354.

(d) 9 Geo. IV. c. 60, repealed by 5 & 6 Viot. c. 14, a. 1.

(e) B. V. Townrou), 1 3. & Ad. 466.

It

494

lOTEBrKETATION OF STATUTES.

a letter with money in it, was held to include
a person who gratuitously assisted a postmaster,
at his request, in sorting the letters (a). The
Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, which
disentitled a bankrupt to his certificate, if he had,
within a year of his bankruptcy, lost ^£200 by " any
contract " for the piuohase or sale of Government
or other " stock," was held to apply to one who
had lost that amount in the purchase of railway
"shares," and by several contracts (6). The
employment of an English steam tug in to'ving a
prize to the captor's waters is a breach of the
provision of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 1870,
against " dispatching a ship to be employed in the
military or naval service of a foreign state " (c).
Where an Act (7 & 8 Vict. c. 15) (d) provided that
if any accident occurred in a factory, causing an
injury to any person employed there, of such a
nature as to prevent his return to work at a.m.
on the next day, it must, under a penalty, be
reported by the occupier of the factory to the

(o) R. V. Becuon, 23 h. J. M. 0. 11; B. v. Foulke,, 44 L. J.
M. C. 65. Comp. Martin V. Ford, 5 T. B. 101, and Bennett v.
Edvarde. 6tih point, 7 B. & C. 586. Transportation is abolished,

see sup. p. 262.

(6) Copeland, E^p., 22 L. J. Banls. 17, sup. p. 479. Cmi<.
Hewitt V. Price, sup. p- 479.

(c) Dyle V. Elliott (1872), L. B. 4 P. C. 184 ; 41 L. J. Adm. 65.

(<!) Repealed 41 & 42 Vict. o. 16, s. 107.

WIDE UEANINO OIVGN TO WOBDS

496

district surgeon and the sub-inspector; it was
held that the Act applied to all accidents, whether
caused by the machinery of the factory or other-
wise; and that the sufferer was prevented from
" returning to his work " next day, within the
meaning of the Act, although he did return for
that purpose, but was unable to work (a).

Certain repealed sections of the Corrupt Practices
Prevention Act, 1854, which declared that who-
ever, " directly or indirectly," makes a gift to a
person to induce him to " endeavour to procure
the return " of any person to Parliament shall be
deemed guilty of bribery, were held to extend to
a gift made to induce its recipient to vote for the
giver at a preliminary test ballot, held for the
purpose of selecting one of three candidates to be
proposed when the election came. In voting for
the giver at the test ballot, the voter indirectly
" endeavoured to procure " his return at the
election (6).

An enactment which prohibited any officer con-
cerned in the administration of the poor laws
from "supplying for his own profit" any goods
" ordered " to be " given " in parochial relief to
any person, was held to reach a guardian whose
partner had, with knowledge of the facts, sold a

(a) Lakaium T. St^hmtm, L. B. 3 Q. B. 192.
(!)) BriU V. Bobinton (1870), L. B. S C. P. 503. Certain sections
repealed' by 46 & 47 Yict. c. 56 ; note ss. 1, 2 and 3 of this Aot.

> »i

496

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTEf.

' !i

bedstead to the relieving officer on behalf oi the
parish for delivery to a pauper; although the
guardian was ignorant of the transaction, the bed-
stead had not been " ordered " by the guardians {a),
and it was only lent, not " given " in parochial
relief (A). An officer of a local board, who was a
shareholder in a company having a contract with
the board, was held to be " interested in a bargain
or contract" with the board, within the meaning
of the Public Health Act, 1875, and liable to the
penalty imposed by that statute (c).

Sec. 78, Highway Act, 1835, which enacted that
if any person (1) riding a horse, or (2) driving a
carriage, rode or drove furiously, " every person so
offending " should be liable on conviction before
a magistrate to forfeit £5, if " the driver " was not
the owner of the carriage, and £10 if " the driver "
was the owner (not mentioning the rider), was
construed as making the rider, who was not the
owner of the horse, as well as the driver, liable ;

(0) Greenkaw V. Parker, 31 L. J. Ex. 4. See WooUey v. Kmj,
26 L. J. Ex. 351.

(1) Dtttiei v. Harvey, sup. p. 337 ; Stanley v. Dodd, 1 D. & E.
397. Comp. Proctor v. JSanvmring, sup. p. 299.

(c) 38 & 39 Vict. o. 55, s. 193 ; Todd v. Soltinton, 14 Q. B. D.
739 ; Nutton v. Wilton, 22 Q. B. D. 744 ; Barnacle v. Clark,
[1900] 1 Q. B. 279. See further, Burgett v. Clark, 14 Q. B. D.
735 ; Whileley v. Barley, 57 L. J. Q. B. 643 ; R. v. WUteley, 58
L. J. M. C. 164 ; Cox v. Ambrote, 60 L. J. Q. B. 114. Comp.
Morri; App., Hoaden, Reap., [1897] 1 Q. B. 378.

CONSTBUOTION OF PENAL ACTS.

497

as providing, in other words, that while the owner
of a carriage was liable to a penalty of ^10, the
offender in all the other cases mentioned was Uable
to M5 (a).

An Act (&) which made it felony riotously to de-
molish, pull down, or destroy, or begin to demolish,
pull down, or destroy, a church or dwelling, would
not reach a case where the demolition had not
gone beyond movable shutters not attached to
the freehold; for whatever might have been the
intent of the rioters, this was not a beginning of
the demolition of the house to which the shutters
belonged (c) ; nor would a partial demolition of the
building be a " beginning to demolish " within the
Act, if not done with the intention of completing
it (d). But if the structure were in all substantial
respects destroyed, the offence would be included iu
the Act, although some portion, as, for instance, a
chimney, had been suffered to remain uninjured (e).
Nor would it be considered as beyond the operation

(o) William y. Emtu (1876), 1 Ex. D. 277, ovoiTuUng B. v.
Bacon, 11 Oox 0. C. 540 ; dhattertm v. Parker (1914), 78 J. P.
339. Comp. Underliill v. Longridge, sup. p. 482.

(t) 7 & 8 Geo. I\^ 0. 30 (repealed by 24 & 25 Vict. o. 95). As
to existing law, see 24 & 25 Vict. c. 97, s 11.

(c) B. V. Soaett (1839), 9 0. & P. 437; Pilcker v. Stafford, 33
L. J. M. C. 113 ; Edletlon v. Barnet, 45 L. J. M. C. 73.

(rf) B. V. Thonuu, 4 C. & P. 237, per Littledale J. ; B. v. Price,
5 C. & P. 510, per Tindal C..J. ; Drake v. Faolitt, 7 Q. B. D. 201.

(e) B. V. Lanijford, Car. & M. 602.

I.S. 32

498

INTr .IPBETATION Of STATUTES.

of the Act, if the demolition had been effected by
fire; although arson is a distinct felony provided
for by a different enactment (a).

Some of the decisions relative to the theft of
writings seem to convey a fair impression of the
spirit in which criminal statntes have been con-
strued. As neither land nor mere rights were
capable of being stolen, it was early established
that title deeds relating to lands, and written con-
tracts, whicji were mere rights or the evidences
of rights, were not the subjects of larceny. To
steal a skin worth a shilling was felony ; but when
it had jE10,000 added to its value by what was
written on it, it was no offence at common law
to take it away; and a person who broke into
a houst/ at night with the intention of stealing a
mortgage deed would not have been guilty of
felony, for the theft was not a felony, but a misde-
meanour only (6). Most of these anomalies have,
however, been removed by the Larceny Act, 1916.
But even before the passing of this Act a paper
like a pawnbroker's ticket, indicating not a mer-
right of action, but a right to a specific personal
chattel of which the holder of the ticket may be
regarded as in possession (for the possession of the

(a) B. V. Harrw, and R. v. Sin^on, C. & M. 661, 669.

(I) Arg. in B. v. Wotbeer, 2 Stra. 1133 ; B. v. Pooley, Euss.
& By. 12 ; JB. v. Powell, 21 L. J. M. C. 78. Sea 6 & 7 Geo. V.
0. 50, 8. 7.

CONBTBUCTION OP PENAL ACTS. 499

pawnor is his possession for the purpose of au
mdiotment), would be the subject of larceny (a)
And a hke rule obtained in the case of a railway
ticket, obtained by false pretences. The ticket
being evidence of a right to be carried on the
rMlway(A). But an Act which punished an agent
who, in violation of good faith, and contrary to
the purpose of his trust, sold, negotiated, trans-
ferred, pledged, or in any manner converted to
his own use " any chattel or valuable security "
with which he was entrusted, would not include a
poUoy of insurance entrusted to him for collection ■
for it is neither a chattel capable of sale or barter'
nor yet a valuable security, for this implies that
money is payable irrespectively of any contingency ;
and it is not capable of being sold, negotiated,'
transferred, or pledged (c).

The tendency of modern decisions, upon the
whole, is to narrow materially the difference
between what is called a strict and a beneficial
construction. AU statutes are now construed

(o) B. V. MorrUon, 28 L. J. M. C. 210. Sea B. v. Fitchie 26
L. J. M. 0. 90.

(!.) B. V. BoaUon, 19 L. J. M. C. 67 ; B. v. Beecham, 5 Cox
C. C. 181. See Marki v. Benjamin, 9 L. J. M. C. 20.

(c) 24 & 25 Vict. 0. 96, b. 75, repealed by 1 Edw. VII. c. 10
which is now repealed by 6 & 7 Geo. V. 0. 50, which see. B. v.'
Tatlock, 2 Q. B. U. 157; but in this case there was a remarliable
liivision of opinion of the judges.

^-i«

600

INTEBrBBTATlON OF 8TATUT1SB.

M' !

with a more attentive regard to the language, and
criminal statutes with a more rational regard to
the aim and intention of the Legislature, thai)
formerly. It is unquestionably right that the dis-
tinction should not be altogether erased Irom the
judicial mind (a) ; for it is required by the spirit
of our free institutions that the interpretation
of all statutes should be favourable to personal
liberty (6) ; and this tendency is still evinced in a
certain reluctance to supply the defects of language,
or to eke out the meaning of an obscure passage by
strt'ned or doubtful inferences (c). The effect of
the rule of strict construction might almost be
summed up in the remark, that where an equivocal
word or ambiguous sentence leaves a reasonable
doubt of its meaniug which the canons of interpre-
tation faU to solve, the benefit of the doubt should
be given to the subject, and against lie Legis-
lature which has failed to explain itself {</). But
it yields to the paramount rule that every statute

(o) Per Pollock O.B., NichoUon v. FieltU, 31 L. J. Ex. 233.

(M Per Lord Abinger, Benderson v. Sherborne, 2 M. & W. 239.

(c) Per Story J., The Indrntry, 1 Gall. 117.

{d) See Hull Dock Co. v. Broome, 36 R. B. 459 ; per Pollock
C. B., Nicholann V. FieUU, sup. ; and per Bramwell B., Foley v.
Fletcher, 28 L. J. Ex. 106; Puff L. N. b. 0, o. 12, B. 5, Barb,
n. 4 ; Leins v. Carr, 1 Ex. D. 484 ; Secretary of State for India v.
ScoUe, [1903] A. C. 299 ; Eatt Indian By. Co. V. Secretary ./
Slat« for India, [1905] 2 K. B. 413, C. A. Oomp. ChadiM v.
Pearl Life Inmranee Co., [1905] 2 K. B. 507.

STATUTES KNCBOACHISO ON BI0HT8.

501

is to be expounded according to its expressed or
manifest intention (a); and that all oases within
the mischiefs aimed at are, if the language permits,
to be held to fall within its remedial influence (/>).'

SECTION U.— STATUTES ENOROACHINO ON RIGHTS, OB
IMFOSINO BURDENS.

Statutes which encroach on the rights of the
subject, whether as regards person or property, are
similarly subject to a strict construction in the
sense before explained. It is a recognised rule
that they should be interpreted, if possible, so as
to respect such rights (c). It is presumed, where
the objects of the Act do not obviously imply such
an intention, that the Legislature does not desire
to confiscate the property, or to encroach upon the
right of persons; and it is therefore expected
that if such be its intention, it will manifest it
plainly, if not in express words, at least by clear
implication, and beyond reasonable doubt (d). It

(o) 4 Inst. 330; ITte Sussex' Peerage, li CI. & P. 143.

(6) Fennell V. Siddler, 4 L. J. (O. S.) K. B. 207 ; The ladmlrii,
sup. p. 500. See ex. gr. S. v. Cliarrelie, 13 Q. B. 447 ; Wynne v.
Middleton, 1 Wila. 126 ; Archer v. James, 2 B. & S. 61 ; Smith v.
Walton, 3 C. P. D. 109; Waij v. G. W. By. Co., L. B. 7 Q. B.
384, per Cookbum C.J. ; B. v. Adaim, 22 Q. B. D. 66.

((•) Per Bowen L.J., Bough v. Windus, 12 Q. B. D. 224.

(d) Western Counties By. Co. v. Windsor anil Annapolis By. Co.,
7 App. Cas., at p. 188; Commissioners of Public Works v. Logan,

.,,|.l

!??•'/

S02

INTEnPRETATIOV OP BTATUTK8.

is a proper rule of oonstruotion not to oODstrue an
Act of Parliament as interfering with or injuring
persons' rights, without compensation, unless one
is obliged so to construe it (a).

A local Harbour Act, which imposed a penalty
on " any person " who placed articles " on any
quay, wharf, or landing place, within 10 feet of
the quay head, or on any space of ground immedi-
ately adjoining the said haven, within 10 foet
from high-water mark," so as to obstruct the free
passage over it, was held to apply only to ground
over which th6re was already a public right of way,
but not to pri\ ate property not subject to any such
right, and in the occupation of the person who
placed the obstruction on it (i). Notwithstanding
the comprehensive nature of the general terms
used, it was not to be inferred that the Legislature
contemplated snoh an interference with the rights

[1903] A. C. 3SS. See also per Bramwell L.J., Wellt v. London ,'j
Tilbury Bi/. Co., 5 Ch. D. 130 ; per Mellish L.J., Limdii Co., Br,
L. B. 6 Ch. 467 ; per James L J., Jonei, Exp., L. B. 10 Ch. 663 ;
per Cur., Bandolph v. Jlfi7nan, L. B. 4 C. F. 113 ; Oreen T. B.,
1 App. Cas. 513; Sheil, £«p., 4 Ch. D. 789; per Bowen LJ.,
Bendatt v. Blair, 45 Ch. D. 153 ; per Lord Esher M.B., Duke of
Devonthire v. O'Connor, 34 Q. B. D. 473, referritig to the judgment
of Cookbum C.J., Sowerby v. Smith, L. B. 9 0. P. 524.

(o) Per Brett M.E., A.-O. v. Earner, 14 Q. B. D. 257.

(b) Harrod v. Worship, 30 L. J. M. C. 166, diss. Wightman .T.
See also Wells v. London & Tilbury By. Co., sup. Tamumik v.
Simmons, 10 Ch. D. 518.

STATUTES IMPOSING BDttDENB.

503

of property as would have roBolted from oonstroing
the words as creating a right of way. The Fartaer-
ship Act of 1865(a), which provided that when
a loan to a trader bore interest varying with the
profits of the trade, the leader should not, if
the trader became bankmpt, "recover" until
the claims of the other creditors were satisfied,
did not deprive the creditor of any rights acquired
by mortgage. Though he could not recover, he
was entitled to retain (6).

On this ground, it would seem. Statutes of
Limitation are to be construed strictly. The
defence of lapse of time against a just demand is
not to be extended to cases which are not clearly
within the enactment; while provisions which
give exceptions to the operation of such enact-
ments are to be construed liberally (c).

a i

statutes which impose pecuniary burdens, also,
are subject to the same rule of strict construction.
It is a well-settled rule of law that all charges
upon the subject must be imposed by clear and

(a) 28 & 29 Viot. o. 88, ss. 1, 5. Ro-onaotad by bb. 2 {d), 3,
Partnership 4ot, 1890, 53 & 54 Viot. o. 39, a. 3. Applied to
limited partnerships by 7 Edw. VII. o. 24, s. 7.

(6) Sheil, Etcp., 46 L. J. Bank. 62.

(c) Seethe judgment of liord Cranworth in SodJam v. Morlei/,
1 De G. & J. 1.

I !

I !

«H INTEBPBBTATIOK OF BTATDTB*.

nnambignonB language, beoanse in lome degree
they operate as penalties («). The sulrjeot is not
to be taxed unless the language of the statute
clearly imposes the obligation (/>). A construc-
tion, for example, which would have the efieot of
making a person liable to pay the same tax twice
in respect of the same subject matter would not
be adopted unless the words were very clear and
precise to that effect (c). In a case of reasonable
doubt the construction most beneficial to the
subject is to be adopted {d). Thus, in egtimating
a bank manager's " total income from all sources,"
for the purpose of ascertaining whether he is
entitled to purtial relief from income tax, tlie

(a) Per B»yley .1., Dem v. Diamond, 4 B. & 0. 343 ; ptr Park J.,
Dot V. Snaiih, 8 Bing. 168; per Puka B., Harri, v. Birch, 9
M. & W. 694 ; S»ee$um t. Manhatt, 7 M. 4 W. 419 ; fer Keld J.,
B. v. Barclay, 8 Q. B. D. 306 ; Pmrtinglon t. A.-O., L. B. 4 H. L.
100, appUed by HamUton J. in Northumberland (^DuU) v. Inl.
Bw., 80 L. J. K. B. 876, ravened on appeal (1911), 81 L. J. K. n.
240, 0. A. ; OrimUU Bank v. Wright, 6 App. Cas. 843 ; Inl. Set. v.
Angne, 33 Q. B. D. 679; per HamUton J.. Laneton Monotype
Corp. V. Andereon, 80 L. J. K. B. 961.

(6) Per Our., BM Dock Co. v. Broune, sup. p. 600; per
Pollock O.B., Nieholton v. Fields, sup. p. 600; Parry v. Croydon
€he Co., 11 0. B. N. S. 679 ; 15 Id. 568.

(c) Cbrr v. FoieU, [1893] 1 Q. B. 261.

<d) Per Lord Lyndhnrst, Stockton By. Co. V. Barrett, 11 CI. *
F. 603 ; p«r Parke B., MicUethwait, Be, 11 Ex. 456 ; per Lindley
L..I., Thorley, Be, [1891] 2 Ch. 613; Pryce v. Monmoulhthirr
Canal Co., 4 App. Oas. 197.

STATUTM niPMtNO BUBDBtm. (SOB

yearly value of his free residence in the bank
premiseg, where he is bound to reside, is not to be
taken into account as " income " (o). The pro-
vision of 8. 32, Customs md Inland Bevenuo Act,
1881, that if it shall be di.oovered that the personal
estate of a deceased person was undervalued at the
time of probate, " the person acting in the ad-
ministration of the estate shall deliver a further
affidavit with an account duly stamped, with the
amount of excess duty which ought to have been
paid in the first instance," does not apply to
persons who have completed the duties o." adminis-
tration (A). Where land employed as tho site of
an almshouse was, on that account, declared by
two successive statutes to be exempt from land
tax, the fact that other land had since been applied
to the same charitable purpose, and the original
la,nd had been, by order of the Court ^f Chanceiy,
directed to be held by the trustees of the charity
to their own use, free from its charitable trusts, did
not render it liable, even in the hands of a tenant,
to the taxation from which it had been previously

(a) 7emHi,i( v. Smilh, [1892] A. C. 150. See also Seeretar,, of
Slat, for India v. Sroble, [1903] A. C. 299, on which see Eaul
India By. v. Searelary/or India, 74 L. J. K. B. 779, and aaduick
V. P,arl Life Aimrance, 74 L. J. K. B. 671 ; A.Q. of Brilinh
Columbia v. Otlrum, [1904] A. C. 144.

Q>) 44 & 45 Viot 0. 12, s. 32; 4.-6. v. Smii:, (1892), 62
h. J. Q. B. 388; Aiiim'j Ettate, In re, [1894] 1 Ir. B. 262.

ill

1

h

1

. :

w

,-

C'--

? -^'- ^

809

ISTBRPRKTATION Of 8TATVTU.

•xempt (a). Bo, kn Act which impoied a itamp
on every writing given on the payment of money,
" whereby any inm, debt, or demand " was " ac-
knowleJged to have been paid, settled, balanced,
or otherwiu discharged " was held not to extend
to a receipt given on the occasion of a sum being
deposited (/'). If one instrument be incorporAted,
by reference, in another, its words woald not be
counted as part of the incorporating deed for the
purpose of stamp duty, under an Act imposing a
duty according to its length on the instrument,
" together with every schedule, receipt, or other
matter put or endorsed thereon, or annexed
thereto " (c). Where an Act {d) imposed a str ap
duty on newspapers, and defined a newspaper an
comprising " i.ny paper containing public news, in-
telUgence, or occurrences ... to be dispersed and
made public," and also " any paper containing any
public news, intelligence, or occurrences, or any

(a) Cox V. Balibilt, 3 App. Ou. 473 ; St. Thnrnmi'i Eutjiilal v.
BvdgM (1900), 70 L. i. K. B. 115.

(6) Tomiirj v. il<*6y (1827), 6 B. « 0. 611. Bee nUo
WrouglUo% V. Turtle, 13 L. J. Ex. 67 ; MuUetl v. Hur\uon or
Butehinm, (1838), 7 B. & 0. 639.

(e) Tuhtumgmt Co. v. DimtdaU, 13 C. B. 667. T'le BUmp
duty for length (in addition to ad. tal. duty, and called " pro-
graesive duty ") was imposed by 56 Geo. III. o. 181, and was
continued by the subsequent Stamp Aots until the Stamp Act,
1870.

(rf) 6 & 7 WiU. IV. 0. 76, repealed by 33 & 31 Viot. o 99.

MTATUTM IMI'OeiNtl aURURHK,

507

remarks or obtdrvatioui thereon . . . pnblished
paricdioally or in parte or nnmben, at iutervaU not
exceeding 26 days," and not exceeding a certain
siae ; it was held that a publication, the main object
of which was to give news, but was published at
interrali of more than 20 days, was not liable to
the stamp duty as a newspaper (a). An Act which
imposes a stamp duty on "every charter-party,
or memorandum, or other writing between the
captain or owner of a vessel and any other
person relating to the freight or conveyance of
goods on board," does not extend to a guarantee
for the due performance of a charter-party (i).
And yet, where an Ant, (c) after imposing a stamp
on contracts, exempted those which were made
relative to the sale of goods, a guarantee for the
payment of the price on such a sale was held
included in the exemption (rf) ; thf same words
being susceptible of meaning differ-iui. things when
used to impose a tax, or to exonerate from it {>•).
The Act, 6 & 7 Vict. o. 30 (/), which exempts from

(a) A.-G. V. Bradburf (13S1), 21 L. J. Ex. 19.
(») 6 4 6 Viot. 0. 79, >. 3 and Sohed. ; iJ«ii v. T^oiie (1867),
L. &. 3 Q. B. 144.

(c) 33 Geo. III. 0. 58, t. 4, repealed 8. L. B., 1861.

(d) Warrington v. Furlot (1807), 8 East, 343.

(«) Per Blackburn J., L. B. 2 Q. B. 147, citing Curry v. BJra-
lor, 3 T. B. 637, and Warrington v. Furlior, sup. See also Arm)-
tage v. WUhinKn, 3 App. Oas. 356.

(/) Amended by 69 & 60 Viot. o. 36, H. 3-4.

f Mi

il-

308

INTERPBBTATIOK OF STATUTES.

^1. '■

rating the buildings of certain societies, provided
they an supported wholly or in part by " voluntary
contributions," applies only where the payments
are a gratuitous offering for the benefit of others,
and are not the price of an advantage purchased
by the contributor (o) ; the payments must be
"a gift made from disinterested motives for the
benefit of others " (6). Lord EUenborough re-
marked that the cases to which a duty attached
ought to be fairly marked out, and that a liberal
construction ought to be given to words of exception
confining the operation of the duty (c). It is to be
observed, however, that all exemptions from taxa-
tion increase the burden on other members of the
community, and should therefore be deprecated (d).
At the same time, such Acts, like penal Acts,
are not to be so construed as to furnish a chance
of escape and a means of evasion (e). The Stamp
Act, 1870, which imposed (s. 3 and Schedule) an
ad valorem duty on Settlements by which "any

(a) Per Lord Herschell, Savoj/ (Oveneert) v. Art Union of
London, [1896] A. C. 296. See also A.-O. v. EUu (1895), 64
L. J. Q. B. 813.

(6) PerLord Campbell C.J., Buuell Imlittition v. St. Oileeand
St. George, Bloomtbury, 23 L. J. M. C. 65.

(«) Warrington v. Fnrbor, sup. p. 507.

(d) Per Lord Halsbury L.C., Inl. Ret. v. Forrest, 15 App.
Cas. 334.

(e) V. S. V. Thirty-nix Barrels of Wine, 7 Blatohf. 469. A.-G.
V. Fume- By. Co., [1899] 2 Q. B. 267.

STATOTKS IMPOBIVO BUBDENS. 509

definite and certain amount of stock is settled "
obviously applied although the interests in the
stock were contingent and defeasible, where the
amount of the stock was definite and certain (a)
Indeed, as m criminal statutes, the widest mean-
mg 18 given to the language when needful to
effectuate the intention of the Legislature. For
instaace, in one of the Church Building Acts,
which enacted that the "repairs" of district
churches might be provided for by a rate on the
district, the word "repairs" was construed as
comprising not only reparation of the structure,
but aU incidental matters necessary for the due
performance of service, such as lighting, cleaning,
stationery, and organist's salary (4). In America,
revenue laws are not regarded as penal laws in
the sense that requ-j-es them to be construed with
stnctness in favour of the defendant. They are
regarded rather in their remedial character ; as in-
tended to prevent fraud, suppress public wrong, and
promote the public good ; and are so construed as
to most effectually accomplish those objects (c).

(o) 33 & 34 Viet. c. 97 ; repealed 54 & 5S Viot. o. 39 s. 123 ■
0».W V. M. Bev.. [1891] 1 Q. B. 239; Inl. Rev. v. Other
(1909), 78 L. J. P. C. 146; Ma^^reene (Vhcount) v. M. Bev..
[1900] 2 Ir. B. 138.

(6) B. V. Comnslory Court, 31 L. J. Q. B. 106. See B v War-
«.d; 15 L. .T. Q. B. 306, 8up. p. 127; A-G. v. L. ,C- N. W. B«.
B Q. B. D. 216 ; Tkorley, ifc, [1891 ^ 2 Ch. 613.

(c) Cliquofii Ckuiiiputjue, 3 Wallace, 145.

imm^

SIO

INTBRPBETATION OF STATUTES.

It has been said that all statutes which inflict
costs are to be oonstraed strictly, on the ground
that such costs are a kind of penalty (a). There
is little authority in support of the proposition.
On the other hand, the power of ordering the
payment of costs had been sometimes construed
on the principle of beneficial and liberal construc-
tion; as where, for instance, they have been
imposed on persons who were strangers to an
action of ejectment, but at whose instance it was
brought or defended (b).

Enactments, also, which impose forms and
solemnities oA contracts on pain of invalidity,
are construed so as to be as little restrictive as
possible of the natural liberty of contracting. It

(o) Ctmev. Botc/M, lSalk.205. See per'KeaoiJ.,CMv. Mid.
Walet By. Co., L. B. 1 Q. B. 351. There has been no strictness
in the interpretation of s. 1 (6), Public Authorities Protection
Act, 1893 (56 & 67 Vict. o. 61), which gives costs, as between
solicitor and client, to a successful defendant in an action for an
act done in pursuance of a statutory or other public duty or
authority. See Fielden v. Morlei/, 69 L. J. Ch. 314 ; Harrof v
Ouelt, 67 L. J. Ch. 347 ; Toma v. Clacton, 78 L. T. 712 ; Norlli
Metrop. Trammigt Co. v. London Co. Co., 67 L. J. Ch. 449:
CImmberlnin v. Bradford, 83 L. T. 518 : Xy/e« v. Sotitkend-on-Seu,
74 L. J. K. B. 484 ; Oilbai v. Oof^wi and Alvemtoie U. D. C,
[1916] 2 Oh. 687.

(h) Buichinton v. Oreenwood, 24 L. J. Q. B. 2 ; Mobbi v. I'dii-
denbrande, 33 L. J. Q. B. 177. Comp. Emm v. Beet, 9 C. E
N. S. 391 ; AhkIci) v. Edwards, 16 C. B. 212 ; Bmjimrdy. Gigiml,
7 L. .1. Ex. 256. See also R. v. Pemhridyc, sup. p. 40.

STATUTES BEQULATING INSTBUMENTS. 511

was in aUusion to the Statute of Frauds that Lord
Nottingham said that aU Acts which restrain the
common law, that is, apparently, which impose
restrictions unknown to the common law, ought
themselves to be restrained in exposition (a). The
Statute of Frauds, which enacts that no action
shaU be bro'ight on contracts (s. 4), or that the
contracts shall not be good (s. 17) (6), unless
"the agreement or some note or memorandum
thereof shall be in writing and signed by the
party to be charged therewith, or some other
person thereunto by him lawfully authorised,"
has given rise to many decisions, apparently in
this spirit. Thus, although it is unquestionably
necessary that all the essential elements of the
contract shaU appear in writing, such as the
subject matter (e), the consideration (d), and
the parties (e), it has been held iaat it is not

(o) Ath V. Ahdy, 3 Swanst. 664.

(i>) Now, the Sale of Goods Act, 1893 (56 & 57 Viow c. 71),
B. 4, where the words are, " shall not be enforceable by action "'

(c) Shardlow v. ChttereU (1881), 20 Ch. D. 90; Vale of Neath
Collitry V. Fmneu, 45 L. J. Oh. 276; Manhall v. Betridge, 19
Ch. D. 233.

(d) Warn V. Warlter, (1864), 7 B.B. 645; Frmt. In re (1898).
67 h. J. Ch. 691.

(«) WiUiatm V. Lake, 29 L. J. Q. B. 1 ; William v. %r,Ks, 1
Moo. P. 0. N. S. 154; WiUiame v. Jordan, 6 Ch. 1). 517; Beer
V. London and Parle Hotel Co., L. E. 20 Eq. 412. See under
8. 7, 30 Vict. c. 23 (repealed 04 & 65 Vict. c. 39, and practically

513

INTEBFB£TATION OV BTATUTB8.

irin

necessary that they shonld be contained in any
formal document (a). A note or letter, by the
party to be charged, stating the material par-
ticulars, verbally accepted, suffices (b). The statute
is satisfied, also, by a number of letters or other
documents connected either physically, by being
fastened together (c), or by their own internal
evidence, if all the elements of the contract may
be collected from the whole correspondence ((^).
An envelope shown by evidence to have enci >sed
a letter relating to the contract, can sjpply

rMnaoted by s. 93 of this Act) ; Arthur Average Auoc., Be, L. B.
10 Ch. 642. Conip. Edumrdi v. Aberayron &wy, 1 Q. B. D. 863.
r:(a) Gray v. Smith, 13 Ch. D. 208; Sariuiarth v. Toung, 26
L. J. Oh. 1S3, on which see per Jessel M.R, Troteell v. Shenlaii,
8 Ch. D. 324; Hayle, Be, 62 L. J. Ch. 182; Jime» v. Victoria
Dock Co., inf. p. 515.

(6) Colemaa v. Upeol, 5 Vin. Ab. 827, pi. 17 ; Wel/ord V.
Beaiely, 3 Atk. 503 ; liiU v. Bament, 11 L. J. Ex. 81 ; Bitlilon v.
Whatmore, 8 Oh. U. 467 ; Munday v. Atprey, 13 Oh. D. 855 ;
Cave V. Hatting; 7 Q. B. D. 125.

(c) Kemeorthy v. Schojield, 26 B. B. 600.

(<J) Shorlrede v. Cheek, 40 B. B. 258 ; Boydett v. Drummond,
10 B. B. 450; Dabett v. Halchinnn, 42 B. E. 408; WalU v.
Aintworth, 31 L. J. Ex. 448; Morrii v. Wilton, 5 Jur. N. S. 168;
Crane v. PoweU, L. E. 4 0. P 123 ; Bonnemell v. Jenkim, 8 Ch. ]).
70; Commine V. Scott, L. B. 20 Eq. 11; Kronheim v. Johnton,
7 Ch. D. 60 ; Beckwith v. Talbot, 5 Otto, 289 (U. S.). See Bidg-
aag v. Wharton, 6 H. L. Gas. 238, oitad in Jonei v. Victoria Dock
Co., sup. ; Sluddt V. fToteoB, ii8 Ch. D. 305 ; fliimey v. Home-
Payne, 4 App. Cas. 311 ; Brltlnl Aerated Bread Co. v. Maggt, 41
Ch. l>. 616; ifc«o«iy V. Dcbcuham, 45 Ch. D. 481.

STATUTES REOtJLATING IN8TBOTIENT8. 613

wnting a). A letter from the purchaser addressed

tmt(«) and one from the purchaser to the
seUer which after setting forth its terms re
pupated the contract, have been held s„ffl ient"

Stat:; rrr'r' *'^ "'^^'''^ *" -^-^ "*

?on?v?" / ^'' ''"'" "^^ *^*' tl'^ o-^es have
part es 7 Z "" r*'°^ *^« correspondence of

totlUT ;.*° '"''''""'« ■* '^e^'orandum
to satisfy the statute (rf). Indeed, as it becomes
necessary, in such a case, to inquire what Z
contract really was, in order to detLine wJetbe
he informal papers constitute a written note o
It, It may be said that the very evil is let in
against which the statute aimed (e)
So although it is necessary that the parties

to admit of their identification (/), it is not

(o) Pearoe v. Gardner, [1897] 1 Q. B 688

(6) G.-6,«, V. Holland, L. B. 1 C. P. 1. Rugd. v & P 130
Uth ed. See also Boyh, Be, ri8931 1 Ch M rr , fr
(1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 518 ^ ' ^°''^''' ^" "

ia L. J. C. P. 224 : Buxtou v. Bmt, 41 L. J. Ex 1 173
(d) i'e.r PoUook C.B, McLean v. AT/coZ/, 7 Jur. N S 999

8Ch.D"46?""" ^- "■ ^ ^^- ^- *'■*« - '"""»'-.

^iSii

514

INTBBPRETATION OF BTATTTTES.

necessary that they should be described by name.
It has been held, for instance, that a contract
of sale signed by the auctioneer, as "the agent
of the proprietor," or of "the trustee for the
sale " of the property sold, sufficiently described
the seller (a) ; though a contract similarly " signed
by the agent of the vendor " has been held not to
suffice (6) ; for a mere assertion that the person
who sells is the seller, is obviously not a description
of the seller, nor tends to his identification. But
in view of more recent decisions this proposition is
somewhat open to question (c).

Again, as regards the signing or subscribing an
instrument as party or witness, the enactments
which require these formalities hr.ve been con-
strued with similar indulgence. The testator who
wrote his will with his own hand, and began by
declaring that it was his wiU, setting forth his
name, was deemed to have thereby sufficiently
" signed " his Will (d) ; and an attesting witness
who wrote his name on the Will, elsewhere than

(a) Sale v. Lambert (1874), 43 L. J. Oh. 470 ; Caaing v. King,
5 Ch. D. 660 ; Bouiter v. Mttler (1877), 3 App. Gas. 1124. See
also Eocd V. Barringion, L. h. 6 Eq. 218.

(ii) Potter V. Dttffield, L. E. 18 Eq. 4 ; per Kay J., Jarrett v.
Hunter, 56 L. J. Ch. 141.

(c) Commme v. Scott (1875), 44 L. J. Ch. 563 ; fli% v. Bouniell,
[1896], 2 Ch. 737.

(d) 29 Car. II. c. 3, s. 5, repealed, 7 Will IV. and 1 Viot. c.
26 ; Lemayne V. Stanley, 3 Lev. 1.

mxUTM BEOCLAmo IKSTRnMENm 515

and presented bv him tnV r ■ authority,

held to be sufflciL^si^ed t "^'*"'' ""'' "^^'^
by H. & Co.. so L t^ S£ e' XlTdTT'
to sue them for breach of 7j. . "^^^"^ '*•

in the letterT6) In '"'°*""'* '""»*'*i°«d

held to b: sSntX^irra' *"' '" '^^"
within *v,^ • ^ *^ "y * corporate body

Acts which establish monopolies ^rf^ nr „ ,

(a) Bo4«-/. V. Pi,-«,j„^ 24 j^ J
S«A 0/, [1891] P. 172 ; 60 L. J. P sg ' *""'**■ "" '*«

(6) !!«.». V. Soare, [1892] 1 Q. B. 593

(«) /one. T. Victoria Deck Co., 46 t J O R OiQ n .
^«/<««, [1914] 1 Ch. 788. ' ''■'^■■^•219;^a»«&v.

(<*) P«r Lord Campbell. Seed v |-„„j o r,
aV«/ r. a Cable Co rZl^T ^^ ' ^ ^- * B- 899;

W See ex. gr. ij. y. fl-„« z)oci Co., 3 B & C Slfi B t,
V- WalMH, L. B. 3 Q. B 41H ■ ^ IJ- & O. 516 ; SrunskiU

if)

5 Q. B. 418.

7 4 8 Geo. IV. o. 27, b. 1.

^kkt ll

616 raTKBPHKTATION 0» STATUTES.

authorised a parker to kiU trespassers whom he
found in his park, and who refused to yield to
him, was construed as strictly Umited to a legal
park(a)-that is, one established by prescription
or Royal Charter, and not merely one by reputa-
tion (b). The enactment (c) that shipowners
should not be Uable for damage done by their ships
without their default, beyond "the value of the
ship" and its " freight," was held to include, m
this value, everything belonging to her owners that
was on board for the performance of her adventure,
such as the fishing stores of a vessel employed m
the Greenland fishery ; t 'hough they would not
have been covered by a policy on " the ship and
freight." and the phrase, " the value of the ship
and her appurtenances " had been used ten times
in other parts of the Act {d). This decision rested
on the ground that the enactment abridged the
common law right of the injured person ; and that
the shipowner was not entitled to more than the
meaning of the words strictly imported («). So,
the enactments (/) which exonerate a shipowner
(a) 1 Halo. 491 ; 3 Dyer, 326b ; Com. Dig. Pari. (B.) 20.
(V) Co. Litt. 233a; 2 Blaokstone's Com. 38, 416.
(A 53 Geo. IH. c. 159, s. 1 (repealed 17 & 18 Vict. o. IM, B. 4).
(4 Gale v.lo»r.-e(1826), 29 B. E. 199; and Bee Sm.tt v.
Kmy (1875), 1 Q. B. D. 131.

(.) As to existing limitations of liabiUty, see ss. 502-505,
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

(/) For existing limitations of liability, see s. 633, Merchant

NEW JUBIdDICTIONB. 517

from liability for damage oaaged by his ship through
the default of a oompulsorily employed pilot, are
restricted to oases where the pilot was the sole
cause of the damage, without any default on the
part of the master or crew (a).

The same principle of construction is applied
to enactments which create new jurisdictions, or
delegate subordinate legislative or other powers (A).
As the Government of India is precluded from legis-
lating directly as to the sovereignty or dominion
of the Crown over any part of its territories in
India, an enactment by the Indian Legislative
Council making a notification in the Gazette con-
clusive evidence of a cession of territory, was
held inoperative to prevent a Court in India from
inquiring into the nature and lawfulness of the
cession (c). A general Order made by the Judges
of the Court of Chancery, under Parliamentary

Shipping Act, 1894 ; and aee also Pilotage Act, 1913 (3 & 3
Geo. V. 0. 31).

(o) The Protector, 1 Bob. W. 45 ; Tlie Diana, 4 Moo. P. C. 11 ;
The lona, L. B. 1 P. C. 426, disousr ,J by Lord Chelmsford in
Clifle Natigation Co. v. Barda;/ (1877), 1 App. Gas. 700. Comp.
The Warknorth (1889), 9 P. D. 14,5, and aee r :„ Ship-
ping Co. V. British Shipotmera Amociation (1889) 58 L J
Q. B. 462.

(6) See ex. gi-. per James Ii.J., Fhvser v. Lloj/d, 6 Ch. D.
301 ; Dim V. Aldrich, 2 Q. B. D. 179.

(c) Damodhar v. Deoram, 1 App. CaB. 332.

r i

i" ; ■ Ji

618

IMTEBrBBTATION 0» BTATCTM.

authority to regulate the procedure of that Court,
and which directed how a defendant " in any suit "
might be served with process abroad (o) was held
by Lord Westbury(6) limited to those suits in
which service abroad had been provided for by law,
viz., suits relating to land and public stock by the
2 Will. IV. c. 83 (c) and 4 & 6 Will. IV. c. 8i3 (c).
If the Order had been construed Uterally as appU-
oable to all suits, it would, while professedly only
regulating the procedure, have, in effect, extended
the jurisdiction of the Court ; an object foreign to
the Act which conferred the power of regulation.
This decision, indeed, was afterwards overruled ;
but it was on the grourd that the jurisdiction of
the Courii had always existed, though there was no
power of enforcing it; and that the Order, there-
fore, did not extend the jurisdiction (d).

The power given to a County Courii judge " in
every case, if he shall think just, to order a new
trial," is exercisable only where such reasons exist
as would lead the Supreme Court to grant a new

(o) See B. B. C, Order XI., for Boles as to service out of the
iurisdiotion.

(!,) Cooiney v. Sr-der^m, 1 De G. J. 4 Sm. 365. See also
Lanman v. AMey, 6 L. J. Ej.. 136; fireof AuHralian Co. v.
Martin, 5 Ch. D. 1 ; Fouler v. Barttoui, 20 Ch. D. 240.

(c) Eepealed S. L. B., 1890.

(d) Dmmvw«,l v. Dmm«o«i. L. B. 2 Oh. 32; Bope v. Hope.
29 L. .1. Oh. 682. See also Be Bmfield, 32 Oh. D. 123.

STATUTES OONKBBRINO l-OWKRB,

At!)

trial (a). And under a power to regulate the
practice of their Courts, it is more than doubtful
whether the County Court judges have authority
to make a rale empowering a judge to appoint a
dep ity registrar, if the registrar is absent at the
sitting of the Court (6), 22 & 23 Vict. c. 21,
B. 26(c), which empowered the Barons of the
Exchequer to make rules as to the process, practice,
and pleading, of their Court in revenue cases, was
held not to authorise them to make rules granting
an appeal to the Exchequer Chamber and House
of Lords (d). A diflFerent construction would, in
effect, have given the Barons authority to confer
jurisdiction on two Superior Courts, and to impose
on them the duty of herring an appeal against its
decisions (e). A power given to the Court, subject
to the restrictions of the Act, to authorise the
grant of leases, followed by a proviso that any
person entitled to the possession of settled estates

(a) 81 i 82 Viot. o. 43, s. 93 ; Uurtagh v. Borry, 24 Q. B. D.
682 ; Bm V. L. & N. W. By. Co. (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 368, and
a like rule applies in oase of refusal to order new trial ; Polt v.
BrigU (1892), 61 L. J. Q. B. 139. Comp. Johnna v. M«,on,
sup. p. 152.

(4) Wethtrfield v. JVefcon (1869), 38 L. J. C. P. 220. As to
references to the official referee, Lmgramy. Etui, 3 C. P. D. 142.

(c) Bepealed 44 & 45 Vict. o. 59, s. 3, and Sched.

(d) A-O. V. Sinem (1864), 10 H. L. Cas. 704. Coup. Ham,
Be, 18 Q. B. D. 393.

' ') Per Lord Kingsdown, 10 H. L. Cos. 775.

'1
»1

520 INTBBPBBTATIOII OF BTATVTBB.

might apply to the Court for the exeroxBe of the
power, wa. held not exeroi.able except on the
appUoation of .uoh a person (a). When com-
i^BBionerB were anthoriBed, at the .ame time that
they awarded compensation, to apportion the pay-
ment among those benefited, an apportionment
made at a subsequent time was held invahd (6).

The Licensing Act, 1872, enacting that where
justices have ordered a distress in default of pay-
ment of a penalty, they may order, m default of
its payment, imprisonment for six months, was
held not to authorise imprisonment where (in con-
sequence of the defendant admitting his mabdity
to pay the fine) no order of distress had been
made. It would, indeed, ha . been iOle to issue
a distress; but the words were express and
positive (c). So, where an Act gives an appeal
to the next Quarter Sessions, that Court cannot,
under a general power to regulate its procedure,

(a) Taylor v. Taylor, 1 Ch. D. 426 : 3 I." 146.

(b) Mayor of Monlrml v. Steven,. 3 App. Gas. 60o.

M 36 & 36 Viot. 0. 94, s. 51, repealed b. 99, LioenBing (Con-
Bolidation) Act, 1910; Bro«». Re. 3 Q. B. D. 545 ; per Cook-
burn CJ., dubit. MeUor J. See other iUu8tration8, m the
oonBtruotion of the power, given to the railway oommissioners,
fl W. Ry. Co. v. Ry. Co»mr.., 50 L. J. Q. B. 483; Tocmer v.
Won, Ck. i D. By. Co. (1877), 2 Ex. D. 450, di»UBsed m
Warmch Canal Co. v. Bim,h„jh.„ Canal Co. (1879), 48 L^J- E^-
550 • .S. E. By- Co. V. By. Com,.r>. (1881), 50 L. .T. Q. B. 901 ;
We.i Ban, Corp. v. G. E. By. Co. (1895), 64 L. J. Q. B. 340.

BTAT TM COMntRRINO rOW>:R8.

531

rajeot it on the ground of non-oomplianoe with
oertain regnUtiooB not preioribed by the Act such
ai failure to file appeal (a), failure to give notices
not required hj the statute (6), or failure to lodge
the appeal a specified number of days before t)ie
Bessions (e). It might perhaps, unless the statute
required that the appeal should be decided at the
same Sessions ((f), lawfully postpone the hearing
of an appeal not complying with those conditions
within such time ; but to reject it altogether would
be to refuse the appellant the priyilege given by
the Act, by imposing conditions which the Legis-
lature had not imposed. Where the judge of the
Court of Arches was required, under the Public
Worship Regulation Act, 1874 (e), to hear a cause
in London or Westminntei*, it was held that he
had no power to hear it elsewhere in the province
of Canterbury, and that all his proceedings there
were void(/).

The power given by 43 Eliz. c. 2, to justices
to appoint " four, three, or two substantial house-
holders," as parish overseers, is not well executed

(o) B. V. Wat Biding (1842), 2 Q. B. 705.

(i) B. V. Weti Biding, 6 B. & Ad. 667 ; B. v. NorfM, 39 B. R.
713 ; B. y.Surrtf, 8 D. 4 L. 735 ; B. v. Bluet, 5 E. & B. 291.

(e) B. V. Panleit, L. E. 8 Q. B. 491 ; E. v. StaffordMrc, 4
A. & E. 842.

(d) B. V. Bello 1.7 L. J. M. C. 70.

(e) 37 & 38 Vii,. -. 85, amended 38 & 39 Vict. c. 76.
(/) i/«(/«o» V. Tooth (1877), 3 Q. B. D. 46.

522 INTERPBETATION OP STATUTES.

by appointing more than four (o) ; or by appointing
a single one, even when he is the only householder
in the parish (6). Soo. 355 of the repealed Mer-
chant Shipping Act, 1854(c), which empowered
the Board of Trade to give the master of a ship
a certificate to pilot " any ships belonging to
the same owner," was construed as requiring that
the name of the owner should be mentioned in the
certificate; and a certificate representing another
person as the owner was held not granted in com-
pliance with the statute (i).

Where trustees, who were authorised to borrow
^30,000 for building a chapel, and to levy the
amount, with interest, by a rate, borrowed £32,000,
and made a rate to pay the interest on the whole
of that sum, it was held, not only that they had
exceeded their power, but that the rate was bad
in toto, and a distress to recover it unwarranted (e).

(o) B. V. LoedoJe, 1 Bnir. 445. See B. v. AU Saint,. Derby.

13 East, 143. „ ^ ^ ,„„

(b) R. V. Courin., 33 L. J. M. 0. 87 ; B. v. Oliflon. 3 EaBt, 168.
Comp. Preece v. PMey, 49 L. J. C. P. 686, and comp. under fl_ 32,
TruBtee Aot, 1850, Shipperdson', Tnutt. 49 L. J. Oh. 619 ;
Stole,' Tm,t.. L. B. 13 Eq. 333; Earford; TrmU. 13 Oh. D.
135 ; but 366 Colyer, Be, 50 L. J. Oh. 79.

(c) See 9. 23 of Pilotage Aot. 1913 (2 & 3 Geo. 5). for grant
ot pilotage oertdfioates to masters anr mates.

(d) The Earl of Auchland (1861). 30 L. J ^. M. & A. 121, 127.
See also The Bristol Citv (1901), 71 L. J. P. 6.

(«) BUcher v. Hughe. (1824), 26 B. B. 424 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 61.

IT^TIITES OONFEBBINO POWERS.

523

A cc'porate ho(v-, constituted by statute for
certain purposes, J, regarded as so entirely the
creature ol trie :,tatute, that acts done by it
without the prescribed formalities, or for objects
foreign to those for which it was formed, would
be, in general, null and 7oid (a).

Rules and by-laws made under statutory powers
enforceable by penalties are construed like other
provisions encroaching on the ordinary rights
of persons. They must, on pain of invalidity, be
not unreasonable, nor in excess of the statutory
power authorising them, nor repugnant to that
statute or to the general principles of law (6).

A municipal power of regxilation or of making
by-laws for good government, without express

(a) Chamben v. Manchester Ac. By. Co., 33 L. J. Q. B. 268;
Payne v. Cork Co., Ltd., [1900] 1 Ch. 308 ; 69 L. J. Oh.

(6) See Hacking v. Lee, 29 L.J. Q. B. 204; Daaa, Exp., L. B.
7 Ch. 526 ; Beniham v Hoyle, 3 Q. B. D. 289 ; Johaon v. Croydm,
16 Q. B. D. 708 ; Dick v. Badart, 10 Q. B. D. 387 ; StricUand v.
flitye*, [1896] 1 Q. B. 290 ; Burnett v. Berry, [1896] 1 Q. B.
641 ; Xantle v. Jordan, [1897] 1 Q. B. 248 ; Kruae v. Johnson (a
leading case), [1898] 2 Q. B. 91 ; Kitson v. Aihe, [1899] 1 Q. B.
425 ; White v. Morhy, [1899] 2 Q. B. 34 ; Bentel v. Bappe, [1902]
1 K. B. 160 ; Thomas v. Sutlers, [1900] 1 Ch. 10 ; Walker v.
Stretton, 44 W. E. 525 ; Simmons v. Mailing, 66 L. J. Q. B. 585 ;
Gray v. Sylvester, 61 J. P. 807; Ooduin v. Walker, 12 Times
Bep. 367 ; Broimscombe v. Johnson, 78 L. T. 265 ; Scott v. Bias-
gow, 68 L. J. P. C. 98 ; London it 8. W. By. v. Hills, 75 L. J.
K. B. 340; Sloicey v. Threshie, 38 So. L. R. 799 ; Nash v. Finlay
(1902) 85 L. T. 682.

524

INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

words of prohibition, does not authorise the making
it unlawful to carry on a lawful trade in a lawful
manner. Moreover a power to regulate and govern
seems to imply the continued existence of that
which is to be regulated and governed (a). But
there is a "well-recognised principle that where
there is a competent Authority to which an Act of
Parliament entrusts the power of making regula-
tions, it is for that Authority to decide what
regulations are necessary; and any regulations
which they may decide to make should be sup-
ported, unless they are manifestly unreasonable or
unfair " (6).

A by-law c.u be divided, if on part being omitted,
the rest of the by-law reads grammatically, and
when it can thus be divided, one part may be re-
jected as bad, while the rest may be held good (c).
In determining the validity of by-laws made
by public representative bodies under statutory
powers, their consideration is approached from a
different standpoint from by-laws of railway or
other like companies, which carry on business for
their own profit, although incidentally for the
advantage of the public. Courts of justice are

(a) Per Lord Davey, Toronto v. Virgo, [1896] A.O. 88 ; A.-G.
(CKario) V. A.-G. Dominion of (hnada (1896), 65 L. J. P. C. 36.

(h) Per Lord Alverstone C.J., London County Council v. Ber-
mottdiey Bioicope Co., 80 L. J. K. B. 144.

(c) Per Lindley L. J., Strickland v. Eaye; sup. p. 523.

KES"!

STATTTES CONFEBBING POWERS.

62S

slow to condemn municipal by-laws as invalid
on the supposed ground of unreasonableness,
and support them if possible by a "benevolent"
interpretation, and credit those who have to
administer them with an intention to do so in a
reasonable manner (a). But, on the other hand,
if a by-law necessarily involves that which is
unreasonable, it is the duty of the Court to declare
it to be invalid (b).

A local Act which authorised a navigation com-
pany to make by-laws for the orderly using of
the navigation, and for the governing of the boat-
men carrying merchandise on it, was held r ot to
authorise a by-law which closed the navigation
on Sundays, and prohibited the use of any boat on
it, except for going to church (c). Where a charter,

(o) Knue v. Johnton, sup. p. 523. See also per Channell J.,
Salt V. SeotUHall, [1903] 2 K. B. 245 ; 73 L. J. K. B. 627, who
points out that vrhere prooeedings are taken under the Sum-
mary Jurisdiction Acts, the justices can treat exceptional cases
under s. 16 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (now
repealed and replaced by a. 1 (1), Probation of Offenders Act,
1907), by dismissing the information or imposing a nominal
penalty, notwithstanding that a breach of a by-law has in fact
been committed. See further, inf. pp. 529, 530, and cases in
note to p. 530.

(h) Per Lord Alverstone C.J., Stilet v. OalintU, [1904] 1 K. B.
621.

(c) Colder and BebUe Nat. Co. v. PilUng (1845), 14 L. J. Ex.
223, distinguished in Thomat v. Sutlern (1900), 1 Ch. 10.

i i*'

S26

INTBBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

which founded a school, empowered the governors
to remove the master at their discretion, and also
authorised them to make by-laws; it was held
that a by-law ordaining that the master should
not be removed unless sufficient cause was ex-
hibited in writing against him, signed by the
governors, and declared by them to be sufficient,
was void; for the power to make by-laws did
not authorise the making of one which restrained
and limited the powers originally given to the
governors by the founder. This was in effect to
alter the constitution of the school (a).

Where, however, the statute conferring the
power to make by-laws enacts that any such laws
consistent with the provisions of the statute, and
not repugnant to any other law in force, shall
have the force of law when confirmed by the
Executive, it is doubtful whether a Court would
not be precluded from questioning the reason-
ableness of such by-laws or whether they are

(o) S. V. DarlingbM School, 14 L. J. Q. B. 67, questioned by
Lord Hatherley in Dean v. BctmeU, 40 L. J. Ch. 453. See also
B. V. CuOmh, i Burr. 2204 ; Chilton v. London it Croydon By. Co.,
16 L. J. Ex. 89; Willianu v. G. W. By. Co., 10 Ex. 16 ; B. v.
Base, 24 L. J. M. C. 130 ; Bostock v. Staffordthire By. Co., 25
L J. Oh. 325 ; Foiter v. L. C. * D. By., [1895] 1 Q. B. 711 ; 64
L. J. Q. B. 65 ; United Land Co. v. G. E. By. Co., L. E. 10 Ch.
586 ; Norton v. London d N. W. By. Co., 9 Ch. D. 623 ; 13 Id.
268 ; ShtUito v. Thompaon, 1 Q. B. D. 12. Comp. Bonner v.
a. W. By., 24 Ch. D. 1.

PBrvXTB ACTS OIVIKO P0WBB8 OB PBXV,LE„.« ,2;

ctr^ ^■'' ""^^^^ '* ^« - -e very extreme

*ionfrom'a JLu bt dZro?""''' "^"Ep-
persons or bodies forfW (*^'°'''^'««t private
^th Privilege ir """E ^''''^' "'''* Profit.

P-pe.S/::f^ri rofrC te?'''^ ^'^ ''^
against those persons or b"^ ''' "°"'*™'^
perhaps, than a^ Sr ^d Tnarr'^f ^'
P^on Whose property is intere?:S- hat"!

cXly wJhTe S* *r.^'° -terfere'shal
as it rr,T ^*'^'" °^ ^^^ enactment so far

?onrtt\^;;;:XtV' ^^'"^ ^^^- ^^^

the petitions framed bv theT "' "'^^^-^ ' -
^constrnin.them%t"Therr:h;r

J~f wt:it'" rds ''°'" "^ '"- ^-^

2 B. B. 4 Term Bepts 3,0 P '^'"T^'^"'"*-"*("90),
53B.B.128;8Terr£teZ i'^'^l "^ ^'^"^ W
fa»d. Sfeoni™, Cb ^ r„ J" ^- ^- ff^' ^'t^gmshed in Nether.

^'m.™™.™^,, [1892] A S3 '■ ■"" ^'»^°"««"

' •' i.

ito

tU

^^^^Hi

X H

•- ^1

1^

1

f

■

1

l!l4:

628

INTEBPRBTATION OV BTATUTEa

in effect, oontraots (a) between those penona,
or those whom they represent, and the Legis-
lature on behalf of the public and for the public
good (b). Their language is therefore treated
as the language of their promoters, who asked
the Legislature for them ; and when doubt arises
as to the construction of that language, the
maxim (ordinarily inapplicable to the interpreta-
tion of statutes) that verba cartarum fortius acci-
piuntur contra proferentem, or that words are to be
understood most strongly against him who uses
them, is justly applied. The benefit of the doubt
is to be given to those who might be prejudiced
by the exercise of the powers Tvhich the enactment
grants, and against those who claim to exercise
them (c). Indeed, if words in a local or personal

(a) Bee obBerrntioDS of Lord Selborne, MSnet T. Mayor of
HvdderifieU, 11 App. Cas. 523. See, however, sup. p. 63.

(i) On this gToand a contract by such a body never to use
a power given by Parliament was held void ; Ayr Harbour v.
OtaaU, 8 App. Cas. 623.

(c) See among many authorities, S. v. Crdk»,\ Gowp. 26 ;
GUdart v. Oladtione, 11 East, 685 ; Bull Dock Co. v. Bnmue,
2 B. & Ad. 58 ; per Patteson J., B. v. Cumbericorth, 1 A. & E.
741; Blakmiwre v. Glamorgaiuhire Canal Co., 36 E. E. 289;
Webh v. Marusherter By. Co., 48 E. E. 28 ; Stockton !f Bartington
By. Co. V. Barrett, 11 01. & F. 590 ; &ofc» v. Pickering, 4 Bing.
448; Parker v. G. W. By. Co., 13 L. J. 0. P. 105; Evertfield v.
Mid-Suuex By. Co., 3 De O. & J. 286 ; Simptm v. S. Staffordthire
Waterworke, 34 L. J. Ch. 380; B. v. Wycombe, L. E. 2 Q. B.
310 ; Morgan v. Metropolitan By. Co., L. E. 4 C. P. 97 ; Fennick

PRIVATB ACm omNO POWERg OR PRIVILBOBS. 529

Act seemed to express an intention to enact
something unconnected with the purpose 4 the
promoters, and which the committee^ J ,1

fTJnZ 'T'' "°"''^ '^°* ^'-^ allowed to be
mtrodaced almost any construction, it has been

Even if such statutes were not regarded in the
hgh of contracts (ft), they would seem to b. subit

from the Crown, to which they are analogous are

S: '2 ''\*'^ '^"" ^'^ construed'^;
aeaonst the grantee, on the ground that pre-

oga^es nghts and emoluments are confeLd

on the Crown for great purposes and for the

pubhc use and are therefore not to be under!

stood as dmiiBiahed by any grant beyond what

takes away by necessary and unavoidable con-

struetion (a); so the Legislature, in grantmg

B,ph,m V. A-„„.V.a„. Gas Co.. 6 H & N 250 • AcTl '

Oh 522; ai^e, v. aa/br^i,Ve Potteries, L. B. 8 Ch 125
AUn^l^ V. CW.V« i.W Con^uue (1885). 15 Q. B D 597 ^

(6) See R. v. Pbri * JV. JBVdW %. Cb., 22 L. J. Q B 41
W Per Lord StoweU, The Setedah. 1 Bob. C 230 ' '

34

580 INTBBPBBTATIOII OF BTATTntS.

away, in effect, the ordinary rights of the sub-
ject, should be understood as granting no more
than aotuaUy passes by necessary and unavoidable
construction. . . ,

The principle of strict construction is less
appUcable where the powers are conferred on
pubUo representative bodies for essentially pubhc
purposes (a).

(a) Per Woo^ V.-C. N. Wo« By. Co. v. U'trcp. Bd. of Fork,
a859) JohnTwe. See iem. v. We,Um.«.per.«are Loca
S(1888, 58 L. J. Ch. 39. See ^bo P.^..^ v- «™«.«J.
9 0. B. 774, OalJ^y ;-^Yn W",l«. v. IS
Tb 6 H. L. 303; B.c)i«»«! v. N. London By. Co. L. B. 3 Ch.
679^' L^n V. FUKn^er^ Co., 1 App. Cas. 662 ; rW Ca.e.
2 Oh. D. 522. See pp. 523-626, sup.

J I;

CHAPTER XI.

SECTION 1.-S0ME SOBOBDINATE PBIN0IPLE8-EPPE0T
OF nSAOE.

any other docnment is that which it has received
fi^m contemporary authority. OpHma est le,Z

Zrj -^T""^ '" '''^*<*)- Where this has

been given by enactment or judicial decision, it

s of course to be accepted as conclusive (.). But

further, the meaning publicly given by cont^m-'

be 7' T ""^ P'-°^«««'°"''l. -iBage. is presumed to
be the true one, even when the language has
etymou^gicaUy or popularly a different meaning

stooTtr ? "^ '^' '^''^^ ^ ^*^«'' i* ^«« under-
stood when it was passed (rf) ; and those who lived

reasonably be supposed to be better acqudnted
(o) Dig. i. 3, 37.
(h) 3 Inst. 11.

360 f„ T,ndal O.J.,fia„i <-/ a,W v. 4„d„«», 3 Bing. N. 0
666 ; per P„ke B., i)<,e v. 0^, 10 M. & W. 62 ; Ci.1^, v
XorningfoH, 26 L. J. Q. B. 181. <'»"™» v.

W Sup. p. 108.

I

S33

tNTEBPRBTATION OF BTATOTIg.

than their descendants with the oircumstanoeg
to which it had relation, as well as with the sense
then attached to legislative expressions (a) ; more-
over, the long aoquiesoenoe of the Legislature
in the interpretation put upon its enactment by
notorious praotioe, may, perhaps, be regarded as
some sanction and approval of it(fc). It often
becomes, therefore, material to inquire what has
been done under an Act; this being of more or
less cogency, according to circumstances, for deter-
mining the meaning given by contemporaneous
exposition (c).

It has been sometimes said, indeed, that usage
is only the interpreter of an obscure law, but
cannot control the language of a plain one : and
that if it has put a wrong meaning on unambiguous

(o) Oo. Litt. 8b; 3 Inst. 18, 282; Bao. Ab. Stat. (I.) 5; 2
Hawk. 0. 9, 8. 3 ; per Lord Mansfield, B. v. Tarlo, 1 Oowp. 230 ;
yer Lord Kenyon, Ltigh v. Kent, 3 T. B. 364, Bianifej v.
WinttaiOey, Id. 286, and B. v. Scot, Id. 604 ; per BuUer J., B. v.
WcMit, 5 T. B. 380 ; per Lord EUenborough, Kiteken v. BarUch,
7 East, 53 ; per Best, C.J., Sievart v. Laalm, 1 Bing. 377 ; per
Lord Hardwioke, A..a. v. Porter, 3 Atk. 576 ; per Lord Bldon,
A.Q. V. Fortler, 10 Ves. 338, B. v. Xaihiter, 6 A. 4 E.
153; ij. V. I>uv;c. Id. 374 ; Nemmlley.A.-G., 12 01. & F. 402;
Smith V. Undo, 27 L. J. 0. P. 188, 335; B. v. fler/m-d. 29
L. J. Q. B. 249 ; A.-6. v. Jme>, 33 L. J. Ex. 249 ; HanMl v.
Exeter (fip.), 31 L. J. 0. P. 262 ; Montrote Peerage, 1 Maoq. H. L.

401.
(6) Beeper James L.J., The Aima (1876), 1 P. D. 253.
(c) B. V. Canterburi, (Archbp.), 11 Q. B. 681, per Ooloridge J.

VRAOS.

6,'I3

language it » rather an oppression of those con-
oemed than an exposition of the Act. and must be
ooirected (a). It may, indeed, weU be the rule
as Lord Eldon laid it down in a case of a breach
of trast of charity property, that if the enjoyment
of property had been clearly a continued breach
for even two centuries, of a trust created by a
deed or will, it would be just and right to dis-
turb It (6). But it seems different where the
Legislature has stood by and sanctioned by its
non-mterposition the construction put upon its own
language by long and notorious usage; and the
proposition above stated certainly faUs short of
the full effect which has been often given to
usage. Authorities are not wanting to show that
where the usage has been of an authoritative and
pubUc character, its interpretation has materiaUy
modified the meaning of apparently unequivocal
language.

Thus, the statute 1 Westm. c. 10, for instance,
which enacts that coroners shaU be chosen of the
most legal and wise knights, has been understood
to admit of the election of coroners who are not

(o) Sl,epfnrd v. Qo^d, Vaugh. 170; fer Lord Brougham
Du^r V. Bo^burghe. 3 CI. & P. 354 ; per Grose J.. B. v Hogg

\ H i:T^'''^' ^°"°''^' ^■^■' ^^ "■ Bardmcke (1850)!
1 U. & N. 53 ; and see E,l,er Urban Coutml v. Mark, (1902),

(6) Per Lord Eldon, A.-Q. v. Bri>lol, 2 Jao. & W. 321.

1^

SM

nmtBPllBTATIOK or iTATOnS.

knights, if they possessed land enough to qualify
them for knighthood (a) ; though in one case a
merchant appears to have been removed from a
ooronership for that he was cammunin mercalor (A).
So, a power given by 6 Hen. VIII. o. 6, to the
judges of the Queen's Bench, to issue a writ of
Procedendo, was held, from the course of practice,
to be exercisable by a single judge at chambers (c).
Although the 31 Eliz. o. 5 ((/)— which limited the
time for bringing actions on penal statutes to two
years, when the action was brought for the Queen,
and to one year, when brought as well for the
Queen as for the informer— was silent as to aotions
brought for the informer alone ; it was held, partly
on the ground of long professional understanding,
that the last-mentioned actions were limited to
one year (c). Though 15 Rich. IL enacted that
the Admiralty should have no jurisdiction over
contracts made in the bodies of counties, never-
theless seamen engaging in England have always
been admitted to sue for wages in that Court (/),

(a) F. N. B. 164.
(6) 3 Inst. 32.

{(•) B. V. Scot7«, 20 L. J. M. 0. 229. See I«j* v. Ktnt, 3
T. B. 362.

(d) Bepealed in part by 11 & 12 Viot. c. 43, a. 36.

(e) i>yer v. Beit (1866), L. B. 1 Ex. 152.

(/) Smith V. Tilly, 1 Keb. 712. As to relief and repatriation
of distresBed seamen and seamen left abroad, see 6 Edw. VII.
c. 48, Merchant Shipping Act, 1966.

CTAOK.

88B

as was ob«,rved by Lord CoS 1" '
'«««« errc, but uniform and unbroken „r""
facit jus. "Were the language obsote '"S
Lord OampbeU in a celebraJed'case " i'tead f

fro? t"' "Z'""''' "°* "« J-«««^ - <"ff ring
from the construction put upon it by oontem

poraneousand long-continued usage. ThUtZ
be no safety for property or hberty if it could be
BucoessfuUy contended that aU lawyers and states
men have been mistaken as to thTtrurmet""
of an old Act of Parliament " M If w« fin^
^mform interpretation of a sSlute'm^IteHX'
^ectmg property and perpetually recurring. anJ

It would be impossible to introduce the preceden
of d sregardmg that interpretation (d).

The pnnciple of construction would seem to
be appLcable to an ecclesiastical case of much
oelebnty. The rubric of the first Prayer Book
of Edward VI. (1549) ordered that cLg^et

(«) Per Lord Holt. Olaf v. Sudgrave, 1 Salk. 33
(*) In ft. V. Emex, i T. R. 594.

a'^r^T \ ^""^ <^^-)' ^^ <J- B- 73. See also per Cur
Bebbtrt V. Pvrchm, L. 3. 3 P. C 6S0

3oi' m" ^"^ ^''"""^' *"'■''''" '■ *-"•*«*■ ^- B- 5 H. L.

it

ID

ff

586

INTBBPRETATION OF STATCTKB.

should wear albs and copes while administering
the Communion. The second Prayer Book, with
5 & 6 Edw. VI. c. 1, prohibited those vestments
and substituted surplices. These last dresses were
again ordered, by the conjoined effect of 1 Eliz.
0. 2, and the Advertisements or Orders issued in
pursuance of it ; and the former soon disappeared,
the surplice becoming the sole officiating vestment
until the Eestoration. The rubric of the Prayer
Book of 1662, Ijowever, with 13 & 14 Car. II. c. 4
(which confirmed I Eliz. c. 2), directed that the
vestments used under the hook of 1549 " should
be retained and be in use "(a); but the surplice
alone continued to be worn for nearly two
centuries. When the right or duty of wearing
the old vestments was asserted, the Privy Council
held that, the last rubric (which has the force of
a statute) did not repeal the Act and Advertise-
ments of Elizabeth, and must be read as if both
were inserted in it (ft). This construction, which
was not reconoUable with the meaning of the

(a) Whether through dieingennouBneeB or negligence 1 Per
Dean Stanley in his Christian Institutions, p. 167. Sewble, it
was done advisedly ; for the attention of the bishops had been
called to the possibility of a return to Testments as the result
of the wordmg; Behberi v. Purchai (1871), L. B. 3 P. 0. 605,
at p. 643 ; See sup. p. 50.

(b) BidsdcUe v. Cli/Um, 2 P. D. 276 ; Kelly C.B. and two
other members of the Council dissenting. See letter to Lord
Chancellor Cairns by Chief Baron Kelly, 1878, p. 14.

USAGE.

587

^th the ordinary principles of interpretation, was
however, the construction which had been put
upon It by long and general usage. Any other,
indeed, it was remarked, would have been
oppressive and unjust, by subjecting every clergy-
man who had failed to use the garments of the
first book, to heavy penalties («).

The Court of Queen's Bench was influenced in
Its construction of a statute of Anne(i) by the
fact that It was that which had been generally
considered the true one for one hundred and sixty
years (c). Even a modern Act has received an
inteT.retation from authoritative usage which
ooiUd hardly have been otherwise given to it
liie Central Criminal Court Act, 1834 (4 & 5
WiU. IV. 0. 36), which empowers the judges of
that Court, or any "two or more" of them, to
try aU oflfenoes which might be tried under a
commission of Oyer and Terminer for London
or Middlesex, was construed to authorise a single
judge to try; such having been the universal
practice of other superior courts of criminal
judicature held under commissions of Oyer and

(1871), L. B. 3 P. C. 605, at p. 647.

(6) 8 Anne. 0. U, a. 1, restricted by 51 & 52 Viot. 0. 43.
s. 60, and 3 & 4 Geo. V. 0. 37, s. 18 (2).

(c> Cox V. Leigh (1874), L. B. 9 Q. B. 333.

538

INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

Tenmner, as well as the established practice of
the Central Criminal Court for the thirty-six years
since the passing of the Act (a).

When the question arose whether a person
convicted at one time of several offences could
be considered, at the time of the adjudication,
as "in prison undergoing imprisonment," within
8. 25, 11 & 12 Vict. c. 43 (which authorises the
convicting justice, in that case, to make the
period of imprisonment for the second offence
begin from the expiration of that of the first),
it was decided in the afSrmative, partly, indeed,
in conformity with the construction put on the
analogous enactment in 7 & 8 Geo. IV. o. 28, but
partly also in consequence of the practice of the
judges for forty years (6).

In all these cases, a contrary resolution would,
to use the words of Parker C.J. (c), have been
an overturning of the justice of the nation for
yeais past. The understanding which is accepted
as authoritative on such questions, however, is
not that which has been speculative merely, or

(a) Ltter$on V. B., L. E. 4 Q. B. 394. Comp., however,
Clow V. Earper, 8 Ex. D. 198. See also per Lords Blackburn
and Watson, Clyde Navigation v. Laird, 8 App. Cas. 658.

(6) B. V. Cutbuth, L. E. 2 Q. B. 379. See also Bucelewh
(Duke) V. Metrop. Bd. of Worla, L. E. 5 Ex. 251 ; considered and
distinguished in Becker v. N. Britiah it MereantOe Inturanee Co.
(1915;, 84 L. J. K. B. 1813.

(c; In B. V. BeudUy, 1 P. Wms. 223.

IW-

VSAOIi.

539

floating in the minds of professional men ; it must
have been long acted on in general praotice(a),

which had grown up in a long series of years
on the part of the officers of the Crown, of not
using patented inventions without remuneration
to the patentee, under the impression that the
Crown was precluded from using them without
his hcense, was held inefiectual to control the true
construction or true state of the law; which was
that the Crown wm not excluded from their use (h)
It 18, however, settled law that a petition of right
will he for damages resulting from a breach of
contract by the Crown (c).

Some, however, of the oases cited-e« £ v
Leverson, sup. p. 638-may well be doubted, "for'
Cmtemporanea ExposiHo has no appUcation to
a modem Act, and I adopt Lord Watson's state-
ment m ayde Navigation v. Zaird (d), as the
^urt of Appeal did in Gold^iths Co. v. TTyart («)
What Lord Watson said was this,-' When there

m-per Lord Cottenhan,, r,^r6 Peerage, 6 OL & F m
W '^h"327 ' '''^ "^ ^•■"' ^ (^«^^)- '' O"- ^- 370! 48
(6) Feaflur v. B., 35 L. J. Q. B. 200.

Jt J^™'*""*^™-?"'" Sy. V. S. (1886), 11 A. C. 607 P 0 •
00 ij. J . p. C. 41. « ^" f

(d) 8 App. Oas. 673.

(e) 76 L. J. K. B. 166.

540

INTEBPBBTATION OP STATUTES.

are ambiguous expressions in an Act passed one
or tvro centuries ago, it may be legitimate to refer
to the construction put upon these expressions
throughout along course of years by the unanimous
consent of all parties interested, as evidencing
what must presumably have been the intention
of the Legislature at that remote period. But
I feel bound to construe a recent statute accord-
ing to its own terms, when these are brought into
controversy, and not according to the views
which interested parties may have hitherto
taken ' " (a).

A universal law cannot receive different interpre-
tations in different towns (6). A mere local usage
cannot be invoked to construe a general enaot-
ment, even for the looaUty(c). A fortiori is t^s
the case, when the local custom is manifestly
at variance with the object of the Act ; as, for
instance, a custom for departing from the standard
of weights and measures, which the Legislature
plainly desires to make obligatory on all and
everywhere (d).

(o) Per ParweU L.J., Sadler v. Whiteman (1910), 79 L. J. K. B.
786, at p. 800. See, however, jier Lord Blackburn, Clijile Navi-
gation V. Laird, 8 App. Cas. 670.

(b) Per Grose J., B. v. Bogg, 1 T. B. 728 ; approved in
Income Tax Conmimionere v. Pemeel, [1891] A. 0. 531, at p. 548 ;
61 L. J. Q. B. 265.

(«) B. V. Sallren, Oftld. 444.

(d) Noble V. Durell, 3 T. B. 271.

CONSTRUCTION IMPOBBD BY BTATUTEa 541

Usage, ancient and modern, if certain, invariable,
and not unreasonable, has often been admitted to
throw light on the construction of old deeds,
charters, and other documents (a).

SECTION II.— CONSTRUCTION IMPOSED BY STATUTES.

When the Legislature puts a construction on
an Act, a subsequent cognate enactment in the
same terms would, primi facie, be understood in
the same sense. Thus, as s. 125, 6 Geo. IV c 16
which made void securities given by a bankrupt
to oreditort, as a consideration for signing the
bankrupt's certificate, w.^ stated in the preamble

0 5 & 6 Will. lY. 0. 4., to have had the etfecl
ot making such securities void even in the
hands of innocent holders for value, and was
by the latter Act modified so as to make them
valid in such hands; it was considered, when
the Act of Geo. IV. was repealed, and its 125th
section was re-enacted in its original terms in
the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849, that
the renewed enactment ought to receive the' con-
struction which the preamble of 5 & 6 Will. IV.

(a) See ex. gr. WitkneU v. Garttam, 6 T. B. 388 ; Doe v. Bie,
8 Bing. 181, jwr Tindal CJ.; WadUy v. Bayli,,, 15 E. R 645 •
Beo.^f„r^ V. Swansea, 3 Ex. 413 ; Bradley v. NewcmUe. 23 L. j!
Q. B. 35.

I

S42

INTBBPBETATION OF 8TATCTES.

0. 41, had put on the earlier one (a). The expres-
sion " taxed oart," in a local Act, was held to
mean a vehicle which had been defined as a taxed
cart by 43 Geo. III. o. 161 (6).

Wliere it is gathered, from a later Act, that
the Legislature attached a partionlar meaning to
certain words in an earlier cognate one, this wonld
be tak( a as a legislative declaration of its meaning
there (c).

It may be taken for granted that the Legisla-
ture is acquainted with the actual state of the
Iaw(<2). Therefore, when the words of an old
statute are either incorporated in, or by reference
made part of, a new statute, this is understood
to be done with the object of adopting any legal
interpretation which has been put on them by
the Courts (e). So, the same words appearing in

(a) Oodbmui v. Batapton (1868), 37 L. J. 0. F. 386. For
" undue preferenoe " in bankruptcy under existing Iaw, see
4 & 5 Geo. V. 0. 59, s. 26 (3) (•').

(b) WaUanu v. Lear, h. B. 7 Q. B. 386, overruling Purdy v.
Smitk, 38 L. J. M. 0. 160. See also Ward v. Beck, 32 L. J. C. F.
113.

(e) B. V. Smiih, i T. B. 419 ; Morrit v. Mettin, 6 B. & C. 454,
sup. p. 378.

(d) Per Lord Blackburn, Young v. Leamington (^Mayor), B
App. Oas. 526 ; Kent 0. C, Exp., [1891] 1 Q. B. 725.

(e) Per James LJ., Dale'e Gate, 6 Q. B. D. 463, and in
Oreatee v. Tojield, 14 Ch. D. 571 ; per Mathew J., Clark v.
WaOond, 52 L. J. Q. B. 322 ; Jay v. Johmtone, [1893] 1 Q. B. 23
189. As to Consolidation Acts, see sup. p. 109.

OONOTBUCMON IMPOBBD BT BTATOTES. 543

a subsequent Act in pari rmuriA, the presumption
anses that they are used in the meaning which

Sflr'' ^"i"''^^ P"* °° **'«'"= ^^ unless
there be something to rebut that presumption, the
new statute is to be construed as the old one
was (a). One reason, for instance, for holdmg
that s 604, Merchant Shipping Act. 1864 (which
hmited the Lability of shipowners, and is replaced
by s. 503, Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), did not
extend to foreign ships, was that the enactment
was taken from 63 Geo. III. c. 149, which had
received that construction judiciaUy (A). On similar
grounds. Order XXXI. of the Judicature Act, 1875
r. 11 (c), received the same construction as had been
given to the earUer enactment from which it was
copied i^d).

And it has also been held that the limitation of
liabihty afforded by s. 503 to a private shipowner

(a) Jfo»«H V. B.. 27 L. J. M. C. 4 ; p^ Blackburn J., J„« v.
*^«y Docfe Co., 11 H. L. Ca,. 480 ; M^. nome. 3 Oh. D. 457

Q. B. D. 405; per Pry hJ., Avery v. Wood, [1891] 3 Oh. 118-
and per Lindley L J., Colonial Bank v. Whinney, 30 Oh. D 286'

„T' ''■^ """"*' °' ^y'«' J- «'■ -t""** V- «««.. 9 0. B. N. S.'
370. See also ex. gr. Siurgh v. Darell, sup. p. 458.
(6) Per Turner LJ., Cope v. Doherty, 27 L. J Oh 610
(c) Now B. 8. C, Ord. XXXI. r. 14, which see
{d) Buetro. v. White (1876), 45 L. J. Q. B. 642. See also
Ander«m v. Bank of Columbia (1876), 2 Ch. D., pp. 654 656

544

INTEBPBKTATIOy OF STATUTKB.

does not extend to the Proonrator-Gteneral who
under Prize Oonrt Roles, 1914, is substituted for
the actual captor of a ship alleged to contain
contraband of war (a).

Even where the Acts are not in pari maieriA, the
meaning notoriously given to expressions in the
earlier, may be taken to be that in which they
are used in the later, Act. Thus the Income Tax
Act, 1842, which exempts from charge property
applicable to " charitable purj (,08," was held to
use this expression in the wide sense of what is a
Charity within 43 Eliz. c. 4 (6).

But an Act of Parliament does not alter the
law by merely betraying an erroneous opinion
of it(c). For instance, 7 Jac. I. o. 12, which
enacted that shop books should not be evidence
above a year before action, did not make them
evidence within the year ; though the enactment
was obviously passed under the impression, not
improbably confirmed by the practice of the
Courts in those days, that they were admissible
in evidence {d). So, an Act of Edw. VI., continuing
till the end of the then next session an Act of

(a) The (hear II. (1919), P. 171.

(6) 5 & 6 Viot. 0. 35, s. 61 ; Income Tax Comtimrionen v.
Peimel, 61 L. J. Q. B. 265 ; M. Bet. v. ScoU, 68 L. J. Q. B. 432.

(c) See ex. gr. per Aahurst J., Dore v. Gray, 1 B. B. 494 ;
Lloyd, Exp., 1 Sim. N. S. 248, jier Shadwell V.-C.

(d) Pitman v. Madiom, 2 Salk. 690. Bee also Dore v.
Gray, aup.

KBBOR OF FAOT OB LAW m A STATUTE. 546

2, to abrogate it (6). An Act which proviS
hat no more than 6d. in the M should 'be paad
for appraisement, in oases of distress for rent
"whether by one broker or more," did not Ter
the earher law, which required that goods dis
trained^for rent should be appraise/ by, t:

A passage in an Act which showed that the
Legislature assumed that a certain kind of beer
might be lawfully sold without a license co Id
not be treated as an enactment that such beer
might be so sold, when the law imposed a penalty
on every mihcensed person who sold any beer Jf

"streY" ; ^-1*'». A«*. 1875, which vests the
streets of a town in its local authority, should
not be constmed to pass minerals to the local
authority, was considered not to afford the infer-
ence that the soil and freehold of the streets
vested in all other respects («). Earlier bankrupt

(o) 38 Hen. VIII. o. 14, repealed 8. L. B., 1863

(6) lie Prices of Wine, Hob. 215.

(c) AUm V. Flicker, 10 A. & E. 640.

(<0 Beady. Slore,, 30 L. J. M. 0. 110. See 24 & 25 Viot. o. 21
a- 3, repealed 10 Edw. VII. o. 8, Sohed. 6.
Je) Co^erdate v. Charlton. 4 Q. B. D. 116 ; Wandmorth Bd of
Work, v^ VnUed Telephone Co., 13 Q. B. D. 904; HolU v /
George S»(i„„ri. 14 Ch. D. 785; Tunhridge Welle v. Buird

'■■^ 35

M6

INTKBFBITATIOII OF STATVTM.

Acta, in making traders haying the privilege of
Parliament liable to be made bankrupts, had
expressly provided that they should be exempted
from arrest ; but when the Bankruptcy Act, 1861,
enacted that all debtors should be liable to bank-
ruptcy, without making any similar provision on
behalf of peers and members of Parliament, it was
held that they were nevertheless protected by the
privilege (a).

It is now, however, provided by s. 128 of the
Bankruptcy Act, 1914, that "if a person having
privilege of Parliament commit an act of bank-
ruptcy he may be dealt with under this Act iu
like manner as if he had not such privUege."

Many enclosure Acts were passed under the once
prevalent opinion that the lord of a manor had
a seignorial right of sporting over every part of
the manor ; whereas he had only a right of sporting
over the waste, as incident to the ownership of the
land (6). When those Acts divested the freehold
out of him, and vested it in the tenants, among
whom they allotted it, but reserved to the lord all
the rights of sporting which had been enjoyed by
himself and his predecessors, a conflict of opinion

[1896] A. 0. 434 ; Finchley Eledrie Light Co. V. FincMey Urban
DiaHcl Cmndl, [1903] 1 Oh. 437, C. A.

(a) NeiKCuile v. Jlfom'». L. R. 4 H. L. 661.

(t) Pickering v. Noyeo (1825), 28 R. R. 430 ; Sowerby v. Smilk
(1874), 43 L. J. C. P. 290.

MBOB OP FACT OB LAW IN A mrirTR. M7

rr. " *°.''^«*»'" *Ws regervation entitled the
0 S TV J'"*" "• ^''' '" '«"*'"8 that he

r^ .k' I^'*?" "P"" *"• ^'"'lo^ed." hud been
evaded by the destraotion of game, not on open
and enclosed lands as described in that Act, but
upon pnbho roads and paths, and in making pro-
vision to meet the evasion, proceeded on an
erroneons view of the law; for public roads and
paths are "lands" within the meaning of the
earlier Act; and the person who kiUs game while
standing on them is a trespasser, not being there
in the exercise of the right of way which alone
justified his presence, but for the purpose of nn-
lawfully seeking gaa- '/,).

Provisions sometimes found in statutes enacting
imperfectly or for particular cases only that which
was aLready and more widely the law, have oooa-
sionaUy furnished ground for the contention that
an intention to alter the general law was to be
inferred from the partial or limited enactment;

(a) See Oreathead v. Morle,/, 10 L. J. C. P. 246; E«,art v
Grahan., 7 H. L. Cas. 331 ; Sou,erby v. Smth. L. B. 9 C. P 524 ■
Vev««hire {Duke) v. O'Connor, 24 Q. B. D. 468; Ecroyd v'
Cottllhard (1898), 67 L. J. Ch. 458

»',? t-n /™" ^^*'^^' ^* '- '■ ^- C- "3; •ff«m.«»v.
Rutland iDuke) (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 117 ; Mayhe« v. WardU.,
14 C. B. N. S. 550; sup. p. 492. *'

Stf

IXTEBPBBTATION or gTATTTM.

m

retting on the maxim, expremo unius e*t txdiuio
alttriut. Bnt that maxim is inapplicable in snoh
oasei. The only inference which a Court can
draw from such inperflnouB proviBions (which
generally find a place in Acts to meet unfounded
objections and idle doubts), is that the Legislature
was either ignorant or unmindful of the real state
of the law, or that it acted under the influence
of excessive caution ; and if the law be different
from what the Legislature supposed it to be, the
implication arising from the statute, it has been
said, cannot operate as a negation of its exist-
ence (a); and any legislation founded on such
a mistake has not the effect of making that law
which the Legislature erroneously assumed to be
so. Thus, when in contending that debts due by
corporate bodies were subject to foreign attach-
ment in the Mayor's Court, the express statutory
exemptions of the East India Company and of
the Bank of England were cited as supplying
the inference that corporate bodies were deemed
by the Legislature to be subject to that process,
the judicial answer was that it was more reason-
able to hold that the two great corporations pre-
vailed on Parliament to prevent all questions as
to themselves by direct enactment, than to hold
that Parliament by such special enactment meant

(a) Per Cur., Jfol/tro v. Cwrt of Ward; L. B. 4 P. 0. 419, 437.
See also per Oookbum C J., Shremhury v. SeoU, 6. C. B. N. S. 1.

■BiioB or rxcT ub law m a btatotk. MD

to determine the qaestion in all other oMes
adversely to corporations (a). A local Act which,
in imposing wharfage dnes for the maintenance of
a harbour on certain articles, expressly exempted
the Crown from liability in respect of coals im-
ported for the use of royal packets, and the
provisions in turnpike Acts (A), which exempted
from toll carriages and horses attending the Queen,
or going or returning from such attendance ; were
not suffered to affect the more extensive exemp-
tions which the Crown enjoys by virtue of its
prerogative (c).

On the other hand it has been laid down that
where a statute confers powers upon a company,
which the company as owner of property could
have exercised without statutory power, the powers
expressly given must be treated either as super-
fluous, or as purposely inserted in order to define,
that ip Umit, the right conferred, and as implying
a prohibition of the exercise of the more extensive
rights which the company might have by virtue
of its ownership of property, and that it cannot

(o) London Joint Slock Bank v. London (Mayor) 1 C P D 17 ■

^^f.^ ""'"• ■^'™*'" '^"'P- "■ ''»'"''"' •^<»»' Slock Bunk
(1881), SO L. J. Q. B. 594, H. L.

(6) 3 Geo. IV. 0. 126, s. 82, and i Geo. IV. o. 95, s. 24.

(c) Weytnoulk v. Nugent (1865), 34 L. J. M. C. 81. See
Borniey Urban DulnVt Council v. Bennell, il902] 2 ," B 73-
Wcfocer v. P,rkin,, 28 L. J. M. C. 227 ; Smthett v. BIM, 86
B. R. 358. See p. aa5 sup.

SfiO

INTEBFBETATION OF STATUTES.

be doubted that the latter, i,e. the restrictive
interpretation, is the true mode of regarding
statutory powers conferred on bodies created for
public purposes, and authorised to acquire land for
such purposes (a).

A mere recital in an Act, whether of fact or of
law, is not conclusive, but Courts are at liberty
to consider the fact or the law to be different from
the statement in- the recital ; unless, indeed, it
be clear that the Legislature intended that the
law should be, or the fact should be regarded to
be (6), as recited. If, for instance, a road was
stated in an Act to be in a certain township,
or a town to be a corporate borough, the state-
ment, though some evidence of the fact alleged,
would be open to contradiction (c). Sec. 3, 36 & 37
Vict. 0. 60 {d), would hardly, by merely reciting
that " an accessory after the fact " is " by Enghsh

(o) Loadon Auoe. of Shipoumen v. London <fc India Doekt,
[1892] 2 Ch. 242; and see Barradough v. Brom, [1897] A. C.
615 ; 66 L. J. Q. B. 672.

(h) The 31 Geo. HI. o. 54 (repealed 8. L. B., 1871), reoiHng
that a oonspiraoy had been formed for subverting the laws and
constitution, and for introducing the anarchy prevalent in
France ; this recital was relied on as proof of the conspiracy in
the treason trials of 1794, per Byre C.J. in addressing the Grand
Jury in Bard^i Case, 24 State Trials, 200.

(c) B. V. Baughim, 22 L. J. M. 0. 89 ; B. v. Greene. 6 A. & B.
548.

((f) Amended 58 & 59 Vict. o. 33.

EBROB OP PACT OB UAW IN A STATUTE. 551

law liable to be punished as if he were the principal
offender," be understood as making so important
a change of the law.

In all these cases, no inference necessarily arose
that the Legislature intended to alter the law,
and to make it as it was alleged to be. A different
effect, however, would be given to an Act which
showed, whether by recital or enactment, that it
intended to effect a change. If the mistake is
marifested in words competent to make the law
in future, there is no principle which can deny
them this eilect (a). Such was the effect of
4 & 5 Vict. c. 48 (6), which enacted that municipal
corporations should be rateable in respect of their
property, as though it were not corporate property ;
but that such property, when lying wholly within
a borough the poor of which were relieved by one
entire poor rate, should continue exempt from
rateability "as if the Act had not passed."
When the Act was passed, the general opinion
was that such property was exempt; but later
decisions settled that it was not. It was held
that the above enactment exempted them, not-
withstanding the final words, which were con-
sidered as not conveying a different intention (c).

(o) Per Cur., Poitmaster-General v. Early, 12 Wheat. 148.
(h) Repealed 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 5.
(c) B. V. Oldham Corp., L. E. 3 Q. B. 474.

662

INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

One ground on which the Exchequer Chamber
held that the attesting words, " on the trae faith
of a Christian," of the abjuration oath were
essential parts of the oath, was that Parliament
had put that construction on them, when allowing
the Jews, a few years after enacting the oath,
to omit those words when the oath was tendered
to them ex officio (a).

A statute of the United States enacted that the
district court should, in certain cases, have con-
current jurisdiction with the state and circuit
courts, as if (contrary to the fact) the district
court had not already, and the circuit court had,
jurisdiction. But though the language plainly
indicated only the opinion that the jurisdiction
existed in the circuit court, and not an intention
to confer it, this eSect was nevertheless given to
the Act, to prevent its being inoperative, and to
carry out what was the obvious object of the
Act (A). The district court could not have had
concurrent jurisdiction with the circuit court,
unless the latter could take cognisance of the
same suits.

(n) 1 Geo. I. St. 2, c. 13 (repealed by 34 & 35 Vict. c. 48),
10 Geo. I. c. i (repealed, S. L. B., 1867) ; Salomofu v. XiUer, 8
Ex. 778 ; Miller v. Salomam, sup. p. 20.

(6) Potiimuter-General t. Earlt), sup. p. SSI.

WOBDS C0N8TEUED IN BONAM "AETEM. 563

SECTION in.-C0N8TRnOTI0N OF WORDS IN BONAM
PARTEM— EFFECT OF MULTIPUCITY OP WORDS—
OF VARUTION OF LANQUAUE,

It is said, and in a certain and limited sense
truly, that words must bo taken in a lawful and
rightful sense (a). When an Act, for instance, gave
a certain efficacy to a fine levied of land, it meant
only a fine lawfully levied (h). The provision that
a judgment in the Lord Mayors Court, when
removed to the Superior Court, shall have the
same efi'ect as a judgment of the latter, would not
apply to a judgment which the inferior tribunal
had no jurisdiction to pronounce (c). The land-
lord's claim to recover arrears of rent out of goods
seized in execution by the bailiff of a, County Court,
under the County Courts Act, 1888, depends upon
whether the seizure was lawful. If the goods did
not belong to the debtor, and the seizure was
consequently unlawful, the claim under the section
could not arise (rf). A rule of a building society

(o) See, e.g. B. v. Hulme (1870), L. B. 5 Q. B. 377

(b) C!o. Litt. 381b ; 2 Inst. 590.

(c) Bridge v. Branch, 1 C. P. D. 633.

W 51 & 52 Viot. 0. 43, 8. 160 (amended by 3 & 4 Geo. V.
0. 34, s. 18 (2), which, in case of bankruptcy, limits the right of
the landloid to six months' rent) ; Bughe, y. Smallmod, 25
Q- B. D. 306. Comp. Beard v. Kniglt, 27 L. 3. Q. B. 359 ;
Fmdgar v. Taylor, 29 L. J. Ex. 154.

554

INTBBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

anthorising a director to reimburse himself for
any loss incurred in executing the powers given
him by the rules, does not apply to acts aftra
vires and beyond the powers the society could
confer (a). So, an Act which requires the pay-
ment of rates as a condition precedent to the
exercise of the franchise would not be construed
as excluding from it a person who refused to pay
a rate which was illegal, though so far valid that
it had 3:ot been quashed or appealed against (6),
and this requirement is now apparently entirely
dispensed with under the provisions of the
Kepresentation of the People Act, 1918. A
covenant by a tenant to pay all parliamentary
taxes is construed to include only such as he
may lawfully pay, but not the landlord's property
tax, which it would be illegal for him to engage
to pay(c). A statutory authority to abate nui-
sances would not justify an order to abate one
when it cuuld not be obeyed without committing
a trespass {d).

(o) CW/eme v. London Bldg. Soey. (1890), 59 L. J. Q. B. 526.
(fc) fl. V. Windsor (JKoyor), 13 L. J. Q. B. 337. See also
Sruyeret V. HcUeomh, 3 A. & E. 381.

(c) Gatkell v. King, 11 East, 165. See Edgeaare Bighmay
Board v. Harrotr Oas Co., h. H. 10 Q. B. 92 ; Oven v. Body,
5 A. & E. 28.

(d) Public Health Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vict. e. 55) ; Scarborough
(Mayor) v. Bural Authority of Scarborough, 1 Ex. D. 344 ; but see

WOROB CONBIBUEO IN BONAM FABTEM.

656

A highway surveyor, who is required by the
Highway Act, 1862, to "conform in all respects
to the orders of the board in the execution of
his duties," is, like the clergyman who had sworn
canonical obedience to his bishop (a), bound to
obey only lawful orders, which his superior has
authority to give ; so that he is personally liable
for his act, if the board had no jurisdiction to
make the order under which he did it (i). Sec. 199,
Companies Act, 1862 (repealed, ss. 267, 268, Com-
panies (Consolidation) Act, 1908), providing for
the winding-up of companies of more than seven
members not registered under the Act, applies
only to companies which may be lawfully formed
without registration, but not to those which are
prohibited unless registered (c). But money
earned in an unlawful " vocation " is properly
assessed to the income tax (d).

Where analogous words are used, each may
be presumed to be susceptible of a separate ar I
distinct meaning ; for the Legislature is no^

Parher v. Inge, 17 Q. B. D. 584 ; and Broadbent v. Shepherd,
[1901] 2 K. B. 274.
(o) Long v. Gray, 1 Moo. P. C. N. S. 411.

(b) Mitt v. Haaler, L. E. 10 Ex. 92 ; comp. Dem v. Siley,
11 C. B. 434.

(c) Padttow ie. Auoc., Se, 20 Ch. D. 137 ; Shatc v. Bentm,
11 Q. B. D. 663.

(d) 6 A- 6 Vict. c. 35, Sched. D ; per Denman J., Partridge v.
Mallamlaine (1880;, 56 L. J. y. B. 251.

556

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

supposed to ase words ydthont a meaning (a). Bnt
the use of tantologous expressions is not onoom-
mon in statutes, and there is no snoh presumption
against fulness, or even superfluity of expression, in
statutes, or other written instruments, as amounts
to a rule of interpretation, controlling what might
otherwise be their proper oonstruotion (6).

It has been justly remarked that, when precision
is required, no safer rule can be followed than
always to call the same thing by the same name (c).
It is, at all events, reasonable to presume that the
game meaning is implied by the use of the same
expression in every part of an Act (d). Accordingly,
in ascertaining the meaning to be attached to a
particular word in a section of an Act, though the

(o) See ex. gr. the distinotion between "rights" and
"interests " in the International Copyright Act, 1886 (49 & 50
Viot. c. 83), s. 6 (repealed and replaced by Part II., Copyright
Act, 1911); Moul V. Oroemng; [1891] 2 Q. B. 443: between
moneys paid " under " and " in respect of " a gaming contract,
Talham v. Beeve, 62 L. J. Q. B. 30, approved in So/ery v.
Xayer, 70 L. J. K. B. 145. See also another example in
Brighton Guardiaiu v. Strand Gnardiani, [1891] 2 Q. B. 156.

(b) Per Lord Selbonrne L.C., Hough v. Windiu, 12 Q. B. D.
229.

(c) Sir G. C. Lewis, Obs. and Eeas. in Polit., vol. i. p. 91.

(d) Courtauld v. Legh, L. E. 4 Ex. 130, per Oleasby B. ; B. v.
Poor Law Conmrt; 6 A. & E. 68, ijer Lord Denman ; Be Kirittall
Brewery, 5 Ch. D. 535. Comp. the judgments of Cockburn OJ.
in Smith v. Bro>cn, h. B. 6 Q. B. 731, and of BaggaUay L.J. in
The Fraiiamia, 2 P. D. 174.

TAUTOLOOOI-8 BXPRESSIOVg.

S57

proper course would seem to be to ascertain that
meaning if possible from a consideration of the
section itself; yet, if the meaning cannot be so
ascertained, then, on the principle that, as a general
rule, a word is to be considered as used throughout
an Act in the same sense, other sections may be
looked at to fix the sense in which the word is
there used (a).

But the presumption is not of much weight.
In 12 & 13 Vict. c. 96, for instance, which makes
any "person" in a British possession charged
with any crime at sea liable to be tried in the
colony, and provides that where the offence is
murder or manslaughter of any " person " who dies
in the colony of an injury feloniously inflicted at
sea, the offence shall be considered as having been
committed wholly at sea; the word "person"
would include any human being, when relating to
the sufferer, but would, as regards the offender,
include only those persons who, on general prin-
ciples of law, are subject to the jurisdiction of
our Legislature, and responsible for their acts (6).
In the enactment which makes it felony for any
one, "being married," to "marry" again while
the former marriage is in force, the same word

(o) Per Jessel M.B., Sptneer v. Metnp. Bd. of Worh, 22
Ch. D. 142.

(6) See U. S. v. Palmer, 3 Wheat. 631 ; See also B. v. Lewis
(1857), Dears & B. 183, and other oases cited, sup. p. ;iti2 el teq.

SS8

DTTEBFRBTATION OF 8TATCTR8.

has obviously two different meanings, neoessarily
implying the validity of the marriage in the one
case, and as necessarily excluding it in the other (a).
And though by s. 27 (2), MetropoUtan Building
Act, 1856, separate sets of chambers in large build-
ings are to be deemed to be " separate buildings,"
and to be separated by proper party-walls, etc.,
aobordingly, yet it has bean held that they are
not " separate buildingp " within the meaning of
Schedule II. Fart I. of the same Act, under which
the district surveyor is entitled to charge a fee
in respect of "every" new "building" surveyed
by him (6). So, the word "made" is used in
different senses in the London Government Act,
1899 (tf).
The case of Forth v. Chapnan (d) furnishes a

(o) 24 4 28 Viot. o. 100, a. 57; B. v. Atten (1872), 41
L. J. M. 0., at p. 98. For aaother Ulastratdon, see f ^iiiiac<ii(io>2
Soey. T. Piper, [1893], 1 Q. B. 686 (approved ia Pharmaceutical
Soey. V. Anum, [1894] 2 Q. B. 720), where the word " article "
ia said to have difffient meanings in different parts o{ s. 17
(31 & 32 Viot. o. 121). So " otherwise " is used in differing
senses in the Married Women's Property Aot, 1882 ; Tidmett,
Be, S6 li. J. Q. B. 548.

(6) 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 122 (repealed, 57 & 58 Vict. o. coxiii.,
s. 215, and Scbed. 4 ; note s. 74 of this Aot) ; Moir v. Williams.
[1892] 1 Q. B. 264.

(c) Per Warrington J., Parrith v. Haeiney Corp., 55 S. J. 670.

(d) 1 P. Wms. 663 ; Crooke v. De Vanden, 9 Ves. 203, yer
Lord Eldon.

VABIATION Oir INTBRPBBTATION.

659

well-known instance of a single passage in a Will
receiving two different interpretations, according
to the nature of the property to which it was
applied ; a devise of freehold and leasehold property
to a person, with remainder over if he died " with-
out issue," being construed to mean, as regarded
the freehold, failure of issue at any future time,
but as regarded the leasehold, a failure of issue at
the death of the devisee. But this construction,
which Lord Kenyon(a) considered hardly illustra-
tive of the saying that lex plus laudatw qmmlo
ratione probatur, and which has since been partially
set aside by the WiUs Act, 1837 {b), was attributable
to the different principles of interpretation adopted
by the Common Law and Ecclesiastical Courts,
under whose cognisance Wills of the two kinds of
property respectively and exclusively fell (c).

So, it seems to have been once thought that
in 8. 2, 9 Anne, c. 14 (d), which gave the loser at
play a right to recover by action his losses above
^10, when lost at a single sitting, and gave an
informer the right to recover them, and treble
value besides, if the loser did not take proceedings

(a) Porler v. Bradley, 1 B. B. 678.

(6) 7 WiU. IV. and 1 Viot. o. 26, s. 29 ; Benee, Be, [1891]
3 Ch. 242.

(c) Peame, Oont. Bern. 476. See Winafield v. WinglieU, 9
Ch. D. 658, and the oases there cited.

(d) Bepealed by 8 & 9 Vict. o. 109, s. 15.

560

IMTBRPRBTATION or OTATUTBti.

in time, the expreision " a single sitting " might
receive two different meanings, according as the
plaintiff was the loser, or an informer: that is,
that a sitting saspended for dinner should be
held single and oontinnons when the loser sued,
bat be broken into two sittings when the action
was brought by the informer ; on the ground that
in the one case the Act was remedial, and there-
fore entitled to a beneficial construction, while
in the latter it was penal, and therefore was to
be construed strictly (a). But unquestionably the
interpreter is bound, in general, to disclaim the
right to assign different meanings to the same
words on the ground of a snpposed general
intention of the Legislature (6).

As the same expression is as a general rule
to be presumed to be used in the same sense
throughout an Act, or a series of cognate Acts,
a change of language, probably, suggests the
presumption of change of intention (c) ; and as
has been seen, the change of language in the
later of two statutes on the same subject has
often the effect of repealing the earlier provision
by implication ((/). Where a limited interpretation

(a) Bonet v. Booth, 3 W. Bl. 1226.

(4) Per Lord Denman, R. v. Poor Law Commn. (1838), 6
A. & E. S6, at p. 68.

(c) Per Lord Tenterden, B. v. Oreai Bolton, 8 B. & C. 74 ;
Richet V. Mel. By. Co., L. B. 2 H. L. 207.

((() B«e cases cited sup. pp. 285-296.

TABIATION or INTRBPBBTATION.

Ml

has be«n placed upon prior Aots of Parliament,
and the words of an amending Act have been
enlarged, the inference is that the enlargement
must have been intentional on the part of the
Legislature (o). So where by earUer enactments,
penalties on members of Parliament for sitting
and voting before being sworn were expressly
recoverable by common informers, and by a
repealing Act the penalties were made recoverable
bv action, without saying by whom, it was held
tl at the common informer could not sue, but
oniy the Crown (i). And it has been held that
where section after section of an Act relating
to the winding up of companies is limited to
winding up by the Court, the absence of any
such limitation in another section which contains
provisions as to procedure "if the winding up of a
company is not concluded within a year after its
commencement," indicates an intention on the
part of the Legislature that the latter section shall
also apply to oases of voluntary winding up (c).
Where one section of 35 & 36 Vict. c. 74 (d),

(o) Hurlbatt v. Barnett, [1893] 1 Q. B. 7T
(i) 29 & 30 Viot. 0. 19, 8. 5; Sradlaugh v. Clarke, 8 Add
Cos. 3fi4.

(c) 53 & 54 Viot. 0. 63, s. 15 ; repealed 8 Bdw. VII. o. 69,
s. 386, Sched. 6, pt. I. As to existing law relating io winding up
of Oompanies, see ss. 182 et aeq., 8 Kdw. VII. o. 59 ; Stock i
Shan Auelion d Banking Co., Be, [1894] 1 Ch. 736.

(d) Bepealed, 38 & 39 Vict. o. 63, s. 1, whioh see.

6«8

INTKU'BBTATiON Or tlATVTn.

4^.

impoMd a penalty for Mlling, tm nmadulteiated,
articles of food whiob were adnlterated; and
another provided that the seller of an article of
food, who, knowing that it was mixed with a
foreign sabstanoe to increase its bulk or weight,
did not declare the admixture to the purchaser,
should be deemed to have sold an adulterated
article ; the former section would reach a seller
who was ignorant of the adulteration; since,
where knowledge was intended to be an element
in an offence under the Act, the Legislature had
conveyed its intention in express terms (a).

Where an Act recited and repealed an earlier
one, which had authorised two justices, " whereof
one to be of the quorum," to remove any person
"likely to be" chargeable to the parish, and
enacted that no person should be removed until
"actually" chargeable, when "two justices"
(omitting all mention of either being of the
quorum) might remove him ; it was held that this
qualification was not necessary under the later
Act (6).

A man who sends his servants or his dogs on
the land of another, would be, in law, as much
a trespasser as if he had entered on the land in

(o) FUi^triek V. Ketts, 43 L. J. M. 0. 132, sup. p. 88. See
Pope V. Ttarle (1874), 43 L. J. M. C 129 ; Bobcrti v. Egerton,
43 h. J. M. C. 135. See further, sup. p. 186.

(6) B. V. Llangian, diss. Cookbum 0 J., »up. p. 287.

VARIATION or IMTUPUITAriOM.

5t(3

perion(u); bat an Act which impoied a penalty
for committing a treipass " by entering or l>eing "
upon land, would be oonstrued as limiting, by
these superadded words, the trespass to a personal
entrance (/>).

Sec. 69, o tco. IV c. 125, which exempted
from oomi'lsf- pil.f.i'. any ship wliatever
which " •: , ■ witLi; iir liuji of the port to which
she beloi, waa uimstn:; as exempting from
oompul=oi- pi'ota,'d 'i, 1 i<: ,n vessel while within
the poit . f 1. )r,i'uti, though on a voyage from
Bordeaux; l/ui ;uu wi '11 uot have been exempted
under s. tilU. Meicuni.c Shipping Act, 1864
(repealed, s. d'Aj, Morohaut Shipping Act, 1894),
which exempted ships "navigating" within the
limits of the port to which they belong (t). In an
Act (59 Geo. III. c. 60) (d), which provided that
no person should acquire a settlement in a parish
by a 40 days' residence in a tenement rented
by him, unless, if a house, it was "held," and
if land, it was "occupied" by him for a year,

(o) Baker v. Beritle]/, 3 0. & P. 32 ; Dimviock v. AUenbt/, cited
2 Manh. 682. See further, sup. p. 492.

(b) S. V. PraU (1855), 24 L. J. M. 0. US, sup. p. .547. But
Bee Bead t. Eduard; 34 L. J. C. F. 31.

(c) The SMIm, Br. & Lush. 199. See also Hidcman v. >/oiVy,
[1900] 1 Q. B. 752, and Genl. Steam Nav. Co. v. Brit. Colou.
SleaiH Nav. Co., 38 L. J. Ex. 97.

(<f) Bepealeil 6 Geo. IV. c. 57, u. 1, which section is itsilf
repealed by S. L. B., 1873.

S61

INTEBFBETATION OF STATUTES.

ill

effect was given to the two different words as
expressing different ideas, by holding that a
house need not be " occupied " for the purpose
of acquiring a settlement (a) ; though, it was
observed, this was probably not really intended
by the Legislature (b).

But just as the presumption that the same
meaning is intended for the same expression in
every part of an Act is, as we have seen, not of
much weight, so the presumption of a change of
intention from a change of language (of no great
weight in the construction of any documents)
seems .entitled to less weight in the construction of
a statute than in any other case ; for the variation
is sometimes to be accounted for by a mere desire
to avoid the repeated use of the same words (c),
and often from the circumstance that the Act has
been compiled from different sources ; and further,

(o) B. V. North Cottinghatn, 1 B. & 0. 578; S. V. Qreat Bolton,
8 B. i C. 71.

(i) Per Best J., B. v. North Collingham, sup. See other
illustrations in Lamenee v. King, 37 b. J. M. 0. 78 ; Oorely,
Exp., 34 L. J. Bank. 1; Gale v. Laurie, 2j E. B. 199;
Coniill V. Bmleott, 27 L. J. Q. B. 8; WiUi/ v. Orow/ord, 30
L. 3. Q. B. 319.

(c) Per Blackburn J., Badley v. Perku, L. R. 1 Q. B. 444 ; per
Lord Abinger; B. v. FrotI, 9 C. & P. 129 ; per Lindley 1j.J.,
Brace v. Abeream Colliery Co., [1891] 2 Q. B. 705. As to
accidental omissions, see sup. pp. 443-443.

VARIATION OP LANGUAGE.

665

from the alterations and additions from various
hands which Acts undergo in their progress
through Parliament. Though the statute is the
language of the three estates of the realm, it
seems legitimate, in construing it, to take into
consideration that it may have been the pro-
duction of many minds ; and that this may better
account for the variety of style and phraseology
which is found, than a desire to convey a different
intention. Even where the variation occurs in
different statutes, the change is often not in-
dicative of a change of intention. Thus there
is no difference between a "stream" and a
"river" in ss. 27, 28, 24 & 25:,Viot. c. 109(a);
and " ordinary luggage " in an Act, and " personal
luggage " in a by-law made under it, have been
construed as meaning the same thing (6). So,
there can be no material difference between
"suffering" and "knowingly suffering" persons
to gamble in a public-house (c). To " turn cattle
loose" on a public thoroughfare, which is subject
to a penalty by s. 54, Metropolitan Police Act,
1839 (2 & 3 Vict. c. 47), is substantially identical

(0) BolU V. Whyie, 37 L. J. Q. B. 118.

(1) Budtim V. Midland By. Co. (-1869), 38 L. J. Q. B. 213 ;
discussed in Maeroa v. G. W. By. (1871), 40 L. J. Q. B. 300.

(c) 9 Geo. IV. c. 61 ; 3S & 36 Vict. c. 94, repealed s. 79,
Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910; Bonify v. Pavies 1
Q. B. D. 84.

566

ISTEBPRETATION OP STATUTES

with "leaving cattle" there "without a keeper,"
contrary to s. 74, Highway Act, 1835(a) ; and the
definition in 6 & 7 Vict. c. 86, s. 2, of a hackney
carriage, as a carriage plying for hire in "any
public place," is identical in meaning with the
earlier Act, 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 22, which defined
it as plying for hire in any " street or road " (l>).
It may be questioned whether too much import-
ance has not sometimes been attached to a varia-
tion of language (c).

An Act which enacted that " it shall and may
be lawful " for a justice to hear a certain class of
cases under £50, and that penalties above that
sum " shall " (d) be sued for in the Superior Courts,
was held equally imperative in both cases, even
though the effect was to oust the jurisdiction
of the Superior Courts in the former (e). So,
though one section of 3 Geo. IV. c. .39, made a

(o) 5 & 6 Will. IV. 0. 50 (s. 74 of which is repealed and re-
enacted with variations by 27 & 28 Vict. c. 101, s. 25). See
Sherborn v. WelU, 32 h. .J. M. G. 179.

(/>) Skinner v. Uiher, L. B. 7 Q. B. 423. See also Curtit v.
Embery, L. E. 7 Ex. 369.

(c) See ex. gr. B. v. South Weald, 33 L.J. M. 0. 192 ; Jarman,
Exp., 4 Ch. D. 835.

(d) 25 Geo. III. c. 51 (repealed 2 & 3 Will. IV. o. 120, s. J,
which Act is repealed by S. L. E., 1874). See ex. gr. Bald'ane v.
Beauclerk, 18 L. J. Ex. 227 ; Monlagtie v. Smith, 21 L. J. Q. B.
73. See also sup. pp. 424-429.

(«) Catei V. Knight, t,up. pp. 238-240.

VARIATinX OP LAVOtTAOE. 557

warrant of attorney to confess judgment, if not
filed within 21 days, " fraudulent and void against
the assignees" in bankruptcy of the debtor, and
another made it " void to all intents and purposes,"
if the defeasance was not written on the same
paper as the warrant, it was held, notwithstanding
the dissimilarity of the language, that the latter
section was not more extensive than the former,
but made the warrant of attorney void only as
against the assignees (a). Sec. 137, Bankrupt Law
Consolidation Act, 1849(A), which made judges-
orders, given by consent by a " trader," null and
void to " all intents and purposes," unless filed,
was held to have no more extensive meaning than
the provision just cited of the 3 Geo. IV. o. 39, and
was therefore valid against a solvent trader, 'ihe
word "trader" which is used in the same and
the preceding sections, was held to be confined to
traders who afterwards became bankrupt ; though
the word "bankrupt" was used in all the other
sections relating to the subject. All of them,
however, were prefaced by the preamble that they
related to " transactions with the bankrupt " {c).

(o) Morris v. Mellm, 6 B. & C. UG; Bennett v. Dan.el, 10
B. k C. 500, diss. Parke J.; and Eolfe B., Bryan v. Ohm, 1
L. M. & P. 437. See also Myern v. Veitch, L. R. 4 Q. B G49 ■
R. V. Tone, 1 B. & Ad. 561.

(h) Repealed 32 & 33 Vict. c. 83, s. 20.

(e) Bryan v. CMd (1850), 1 L. M. k P. 429 ; discussed in
ffowon V. WrigU (1886), 56 L. J. Q. B. 131.

568

INTERPBKTATIOM OF STATITEP.

Where under earlier bankruptcy statutes certain
voluntary settlements could be avoided by an order
for sale by a trustee in bankruptcy, and were thus
voidable only, the enactment in s. 47, Bankruptcy
Act, 1883, that such settlements should be " void "
as against the trustee was construed as also merely
rendering them voidable ; the object of the Legis-
lature being conceived to be imohanged, and the
purpose of the alteration to be merely convenience
in drafting (a).

A change of language effected by the omission
in a later statute of words which occurred in an
earlier one would make no difference in the sense,
when the omitted words of the earlier enactment
were unnecessary. Thus, where the first Act, after
enacting that in an " indictment " for murder the
manner or means of death need not be stated,
superfluously provided that the term " indictment "
should include "inquisition" (which it did ex vi
termini, without any such provision (6)), and a sub-
sequent consolidation Act repealed and re-enacted
the same enactment, omitting the unnecessary
interpretation clause ; it was held that the word

(o) 46 & 47 \ i( t. c. 52 (repealed, 4 & 5 Geo. V. o. 59, b. 168,
and Sohed. 6, wh ",h see) ; Re Brail, [1893] 2 Q. B. 381 ;
approved by Ct. of Ap., Be Carter and Kmderdme, 66 L. J. Ch.
408.

(i>) 2 Hale, 156*: Witliifole', Cate, Cro. Car. 134. Alitev.
" information," B. v. Slalor, 8 Q. B. D. 267. See also Yates v.
S., 14 Q. B. D. C48 ; A.-G. v. Bradlaugk, 14 Q. B. D. 667.

VARIATION OP LANOITAOK.

sn

" indiotment " was to be read in its full and estab-
li8h«i meaning, and not in the restricted sense
m which the Legislature apparently understood
it in the earUer statute (a). So, the Merchant
Shipping Act of 1854, which required (following
an earlier Act) that the transfer of ships should be
registered, but omitted the proviso of the earlier,
which declared that a transfer not registered
should not be valid for any purpose whatever, was
construed as making such a transfer void, not-
withstanding the omission of the proviso (h). The
« & 9 Vict. c. 106, which, after repealing a similar
enactment of the preceding session, made certain
leases void when not made by deed, was construed
as leaving the unsealed document valid as an
agreement; although the repealed Act had an
express provision to that effect, which the repeal-
ing one omitted (c).

Even where the omitted words were material
to the sense, but might be implied, the omission
would not, in itself, be considered material, if
leading to consequences not likely to be intended.

(o) B. V. Ingham, 33 L. J. Q. B. 183.

(6) Liverpool Borough Bank v. Turner, 30 L. J. Ch. 379. See
also Ballhyany v. Bouch (1881), 50 L. .1. Q. B. 421, and sb. 24-26,
Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

(c) Bond V. SotUng (1860). 30 L. J. Q. B. 227; Parler \.
Tamell, 27 L. ,T. Ch. 812 ; per Byles J., Tidey v. Mollell, 16
C . B. N. S. 298. See, however, Walth v. Lonsdale, 52 L. J. Ch. 2,
on which see Coalmorih v. Johnson, 55 L. J. Q. B. 220.

r^

570

INTEBPBBTATIOy OF BTATDTEB.

Thus, althongh the Bankniptoy Act, 1869, in
maMng an assignment by a debtor of all his
property an act of bankruptcy, omitted the words
" with intent to defeat or delay his creditors "
which had been in former Acts, it was held that
no alteration had been made in the law ; for those
words had been really superfluous and mislead-
ing (a). A statute which required witnesses before
an election commission to answer self-oriminatiDg
questions, and indemnified them against prosecu-
tion for the ofTences confessed, if the commissioners
certified that they had answered the questions,
was held not to differ substantially from an earlier
one, which gave the indemnity only when it was
certified that the answers were true. The Court
shrank from inferring, from the mere dissimilarity
of the terms of the two Acts, though the omitted
words were material, the improbable intention,
in the later one, to protect a witness who had
answered, indeed, in point of fact, but had answered
falsely or contemptuously (6).
It has, indeed, been said that, generally, statutes

(o) Wood, Be, L. E. 7 Ch. 302. See Hon v. Ion, 4 B. & Ad.
78. See also Copeland, Exp., 22 L. J. Back. 17 ; and note a
similar omission in s. 1 of Bankruptcy Act, 1914.

(6) B. V. Eulme, sup. p. 415. See Duncan v. Tindal, 22 L. J.
C. P. 137 ; Hughen v. Morrin, 2 De G. M. & G. 349 ; McCahmil
V. Bankin, Id. 403; Kennedy v. Gibton, 8 Wallace, 498. See
sap. p. 445.

A88O0IATED WORDS OF THE SAME KIND. 571

m par! materiA ought to receive a uniform oon-
Btrnction, notwithstanding any slight variations of
phrase; the object and intention being the same (a).
And it has been fiequently laid down in America,
that the mere change of phraseology is not to be
deemed to alter the law (h). It would be difficult,
at the present time, to give countenance to the
doubt whether an Act which made it felony to
steal " horses," in the plural, applied to the steal-
ing of one horse, in consequence of an earlier Act
having made it felony to steal " any horse " in the
singular (c). The general language of a statute
which repealed one of limited operation, and re-
enacted its provisions in an amended form, would
be construed as equally limited in operation, unless
an intention to extend it clearly appeared (d).

SECTION IV. — ASSOCIATED WORDS UNOGBSTOOD IN A
COMMON SENSE.

When two words or expressions are coupled
together, one of which generally includes the
other, it is obvious that the more general term
is used in a meaning excluding the specific one.

(a) Per Cur., Murray v. E. I. Co., 24 K. B. 325, referring to
the Statutes of Limitation.
(h) Sedg. Interp. Stat. 234, 428.

(c) 2 Hale, 365 ; sup. p. 467.

(d) Per Our., Brown v. JtcLacUan, L. B. 4 P. 0. 543.

S73

INTBRPBETATIOK OF STATUTrg.

Though the words "cows," " sheep," and " horses,"
for example, standing alone, comprehend heifers,
Iambs, and ponies respectively, they would be
understood as excluding them if the latter words
were coupled with them (a). The word "land,"
v>\aich in its ordinary legal acceptation includes
buildings standing upon it, is evidently used as
excluding them, when it is coupled with the word
" buildings " (b). If after imposing a rate on
houses, buildings, works, tenements, and heredita-
ments, an Act exempted "land," this word would be
restricted to land unburthened with houses, build-
ings, or works ; which would otherwise have been
unnecessarily enumerated (c). In 43 Eliz. c. 2,
s. 1, which imposed a poor rate on the occupiers
of "lands," houses, tithes, and "coal-mines," the
same word was similarly limited in meaning as not
including mines other than coal-mines (rf). The

(0) B. V. Cooh, 2 East, P. 0. 616 ; B. v. ioom, 1 Moo.
0. 0. 160.

(1) See ex. gr. Dtwhunt t. Fdldea, 66 B. B. 696 ; Peto v.
Wett Bam, 28 L. J. M. C. 240 ; discussed and questioned by
Blackburn .1. in B. v. Midland By. (1875), ii L. J. M. C. 137.

(c) B. V. Jlft<Haml By. Co., 4 E. & B. 958 ; Crayford v. Butter,
[1897] 1 Q. B. 650.

{d) Lead Smelting Co. v. Bicharditm (1762), 3 Burr. 1341 ; B.v.
Sedgley, 2B. & Ad. 65 ; B. v. Cnnningham, 5 East, 478 ; Morgan
V. Oramiay (1871), L. R. 5 H. L. 304 ; Thunhy v. Briercliffe,
[1894] 2 Q. B. 11, [1895] A. C. 32. Comp. Southumrk <te.
Water Co. v. Hampton Urban Council (1898), 68 L. J. Q. B. 207.

ABflOOUTSO W0ED8 OV THB 8AME KIND. 873

mention of one kind of mine shows that the Legis-
lature understood the word " land," which in law
comprehends all mines, as not including any.

In the same way, although the word "per-
son," in the abstract, includes artificial persons,
that is, corporations (a), the Statute of Uses
(27 Hen. VIII. c. 10), which enacts that when a
" person " stands seised of tenements to the use
of another " person or body corporate," the latter
" person or body " shall be deemed to be seised of
them, is understood as using the word " person " in
the former part of the sentence as not including a
body corporate. Consequently, the statute does
not apply where the legal seisin is in a corpora-
tion (b). The same construction was given, for tlie
same reason, to the same word in the Charitable
Uses Act, 1735, 9 Geo. II. c. 36(c).

It is in this sense that the maxim, occasionally
misapplied in argument (d), expresaio urUus eat
exdmU) alterius, finds its true application.

(a) 2 Inst. 722. See, however, Wmvm Co. v. Forrett, 1 Stra.
1241 ; Barrimnt) Gate, 1 Leach, 180 ; St. Leonardt v. Frmkliti,
3 C. P. D. 377 ; Pharmaceutical Society v. Lomlon <t Pronnci<U
Supply A^Mc., 49 L. J. Q. B. 736. As to foreign corporations,
Iiijate V. Auitrian Lloyd:,, 27 L. J. 0. P. 323 ; Scott v. Soyd Wax
Co., I Q. B. D. 404 ; Royal Mail Co. v. Brakam, 2 App. Cas. 381.

(i) Bac. Beading Stat. Uses, 43, 57.

(») Repealed except a. 5 (in part) 51 & 52 Viet. o. 42, s. 13 ;
Walker v. Biehardaon, 6 L. .J. Ex. 229.

(rf) Sup. p. 548. See FeaHer v. M., 6 B. & S. 257 ; Eatlern

'11, ,

i

%

074

INTKBPIUtTATIOM or BTATVm.

When two or more words, soBoeptible of analo-
gons meaning, are coupled together, no»euntur a
lociis ; they are understood to be used in their oog-
nate sense. They take, as it were, their colour from
each other; that is, the more general is restricted
to a sense analogous to the less general. The
expression, for instance, of " places of public
resort," assumes a very different meaning when
coupled with " roads and streets," from that which
it would have if the accompanying expression was
" houses " (a). In ah enactment (s. R, 23 & 24 Vict,
c. 27 (b)) respecting houses " for public refresh-
ment, resort and entertainment," the last word was
understood, not as a theatrical or musical or other
similar performance, but as something contribut-
ing to bodily, not mental, gratification (c-). Au

AreUfdago Co. v. B., 1 E. & B. 310, per CreBBwell J. ; London
Joint Slock Bank T. London {Mayor), 1 0. F. D. 117.

(a) Bee ex. gr. Jonet, Be, 21 L. J. M. 0. 116 ; B. v. Broum, 21
L. J. M. C. 113 ; Frealone, Bxp., 25 L. J. M. 0. 121 ; X>ar^> v.
Donglai, 28 L. J. M. C. 193 ; Stwell v. Taglor, 29 L. J. M. C.
SO ; Cote v. Slorty, 38 L. J. M. C. 113 ; Skimur v. Uiher, 41
L. J. M. C. 158. See also B. v. Ckarlemorlh, 2 L. M. & F.
117 ; WiUon v. Halifax, 37 L. J. Ex. 44 ; Kippini, Exp., 66
I,. J. Q. B. 96.

(ii) See. 6 amended 24 & 25 Viet. o. 91, es. 8, 10.

(c) JTutV V. Keay, 44 L. J. M. C. 143. See Taylor v. Oram, 31
L. J. M. 0. 262 ; ifoice. v. Inl. Bee, 45 L. J. M. C. 86 ; 46 Id.
16 ; but with another context " entertaiument " may easily have
another connotation, ex. gr. See B. v. Tucker, 46 L. J. M.. C.
197; Terry V. Brighton Aqtiarium Co., 44 L. J. M. C. 173; Beiil

AS800UXBD WOHINt 09 THE gAHK KIND.

S79

Act (a) which exempted " magnates and noblemen ' '
from tithes, was held, on this ground, not to extend
to an ecoleBlastioal magnate, such as a dean, but
to apply only to magnates of a " noble " kind (6).

In the same way, b. 17, Statute of Frauds,
which required that contracts for the sale of
" goods, wares, and merchandise " for iElO or
upwards, should be in writing, and the Factors
Act, 6 & 6 Vict. c. 39 (c), which protected certain
dealings of agents entrusted with the documents
of title of "goods and merchandise," did not
extend to shares or stock in companies ((/), or to
the certificates of them(<j). In each of these
cases, the meaning of the more general word is in

V. WihoH, 61 Li. J. M. 0. 60 ; Baxter v. Langltji, 38 L. J. M. C.
1; Lee V. Sinpton, 16 L. J. C. P. lOS ; Lamb v. Stott, 36 So.
L. B. 913.

(a) 37 Hen. VUI. o. 13.

(b) Wardea v. Dean of Si. Pautt (1817), i Prioo, 65.

(c) Now the Sale of QoocIb Act, 1893, 56 & 57 Viot. c. 71,
8. 4, sap. p. 611, and the Factors Act, 1889, 52 & 53 Vict.
clfi.

(d) Tempeet v. Kilner, 3 0. B. 249; Bowlby v. Bell, 16 L. J.
C. P. 18 ; Bumble v. Mitchell, 9 L. J. Q. B. 29 ; Heieltine v.
Siggere, 18 L. J. Ex. 166.

(e) Freeman v. Appleyard, 32 L. J. Ex. 175 See, however,
Bvttiu V. Daciet, [1893] 2 Ch. 216, where shares were held to ))e
within the words " goods, wcres, or merchandise " of R. S. C,
1883, Ord. 50, r. 2. No reference appears, however, to have
been made to the principle under consideration, or to the fore-
going authorities.

i

Moocorr hisouition ibt chait

(ANSI and ISO TEST CHART No. 2|

APPLIED IIVMGE In,

^r^ 1653 East Moin Slr»l

S^S Roch«s1«r. N*i> York I

^S (716) *82-0J00-Plior

^S (716) 288 -5989 -Fox

676

INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

a measure derived from, or at least limited by,
the more specific one with which it is associated'.
The Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act, 1849(a),
which made a fraudulent "gift, deUvery, or
transfer" of property an act of bankruptcy (6)
included only such deliveries or transfers as were
of the nature of a gift; that is, such only as
alter the ownership of the property; but it did
not include a delivery to a bailee for sate
custody (c).

In the provision of the repealed Bankruptcy
Act, 1869, which authorised the Court to order
a bankrupt to set aside a sum out of his " salary
or income " towards payment of his debts, the
latter word was held to mean income of the nature
of salaiy, such as periodical payments under a
contract for a theatrical engagement (rf), or the
eammgs of a commercial traveller employed at
so much a year, terminable at a week's notice («);
but would not apply to wages (./') ; or earnings of a

(o) Repealed 32 & 33 Vict. o. 83, s. 20.

(6) Comp. 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 59, s. 1 (i).

(c) Cotton V. Ja„ie» (1830), 35 B. B. 241 ; 8 L. J. K B 343 •
/«■« V. Seenton (1869), 38 L. J. Bx 89

(<0 32 A 33 Vict. 0. 71, s. 90 (as to existing Law, see
Bankraptcy Act, 1914, s. 51 (2)) ; Shine. Eup.. 61 L. J. Q B
253; Ke Grayion, [1896] 1 Q. B. 417.

(e) Bnndle, Ejp., 56 h. T. 498.

(/) Lhud, B^p., [1891] 2 Q. B. 231. See further, B, Jouo
inf. p. 579.

ASSOCIATED WORDS OP THE SAME KIND. 577

professional man (a). These latter statements are,
however, much qualified by the decision of the
Court of Appeal in Eohots, In re (It).

The receipt of " parochial relief or other alms,"
which disqualifies for the municipal franchise
(5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 9), is confined to other
parochial alms, and does not include alms received
from a charitable institution (c). And it is now
provided by 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 64, s. 9 (1), that
" A person shall not be disqualified from being
registered or from voting as a parliamentary or
local government elector by reason that he or
some person for whose maintenance he is respon-
sible has received poor relief or other alms." The
ordinary marine policy which ensures against
arrest of "kings, princes, and people," refers,
under the last word, not to any collection of
persons, but to the governing power of a country
not included in the other terms with which it is
associated (d).

(o) Benmll, Exp., 54 L. J. Q. B. 59. Sea Bogen, Re, [18941
1 Q. B. 425.

(6) Roberts, In re, [1900] 1 Q. B., Lindley M.B., at p. 129 •
(1899), 69 L. J. Q. B. 19.

(c) R. T. Lichfield, 2 Q. B. 693. See Hairiam v. Carter, 2
0. P. D. 26, and Cowen v. Kiiigslon-upou-HuU, [1897] 1 Q. B.
273, and the oases collected therein.

(d) Neabilt v. LmUngtim, 4 T. R. 783. See Johmnn v. Bogg,
10 Q. B. D. 432. See also Davidson v. Bunaiid, L. E. i C. P.
117 ; Ashbury Carriage Co. v. Riehe, L. B. 7 H. L. 673 ; Chartered

I.S. 37

iiJii'i':

S78

INTEBPBETATIOJf OF 8TATUTBI8.

In the Thames Conservancy Act, 1857, which,

after empowering the conservators to license the

construction of jetties in the river, provided that

this should not take away any "right," claim,

privilege, franchise, or immunity to which the

occupiers of land on the banks were entitled, the

word " right " was limited by the associated word'j

to vested rights of property, and did not include

the right of navigation which the occupiers enjoyed

not otherwise than the public generally (a). In

8. 1, Prescription Act, 1832, the expression " any

right of common " is similarly restricted by the

succeeding words, " or other profit or benefit to be

taken and enjoyed from or upon any land," so as

not to include rights in gross, but only those

usual rights of common and profit d prendre which

are in some way appurtenant to the land, and

limited to the wants of a dominant tenement (b).

And in s. 2 of the same Act, relating to claims

by custom, prescription or grant, " to any way

or other easement," the only easements included

are those analogous to a right of way, that is,

rights of utility and benefit, and not merely of

Merc. BarJc v. WtUon, 3 Ex. D. 308; Woodward v. London Jc N.
W/By. Co., Id. 121 ; Williamt v. Ellit, 5 Q. B. D. 175.

(o) 20 & 21 Vict. 0. oxlvu. B. 53 ; Kearnt v. Cordaainen Co
(1859), 28 L. J. 0. P. 285 ; discussed in Lgon v. FMmonger, Co.
(1876), 46 L. J. Ch. 68, at p. 75.

(6) 2 & 3 Wai. IV. 0. 71 (extended to Ireland, 21 & 22 Vict. c.
42) ; Shutllewo.-lh v. Le Fleming, 34 L. J. C. P. 309.

ABBOCIATED WORDS OF THE SAME KIVD 379

recreation a ad amu8eiDvint(a). An Act {!,) which
made it felony to break and enter into a " dwelling,
shop, warehouse, or counting-house," would not
include a workshop, but only that kind of shop
which had some analogy with a warehouse; that
is, one for the sale of goods (c). And a statutory
prohibition for the conveyance of gunpowder into a
mine except in a " case or canister " would prevent
the use of a case, such as a linen bag, which is not
of the same solid and substantial description as a
canister (d). Debentures of a company are not
" stock or shares " within s. 14, Judgments Act («),
1838 (/), and the wages of a collier are not within
the meaning of the words " salary or income " of
s. 63 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (^), as they are
not " income " ejusdem generis with " salary " (k).

(a) Moarueg v. Imay, 34 L. J. Ex. 52. See Webb v. Bird, 10
0. B.N. 8.268; 13 Id. 841.

(ft) 7 & 8 Goo. IV. 0. 29 (repealed 24 & 26 Viot. o. 95,
wbioh Beo).

(e) B. V. Sanders (1839), 9 0. 4 P. 79.

(<J) 38 & 36 Viot. 0. 77, s. 23 (2) ; Foeier v. mphuyt Cauon
Slate Co., 56 L. J. M. 0. 21.

(«) 1 & 2 Viot. 0. 110 (aa to s. 14, see 57 Sc 58 Viot. o. 16,
8. 5, aad Sohed.).

(/) Sellar v. Bright d Co. (1904), 73 L. J. K. B. 643.

(y) Bepealed by Bankruptcy Act, 1914, aa to appropriation
of portion of pay or salary to creditors under thig latter Act,
Bee s. 51 (2).

(1) Re Jonet, [1891] 2 Q. B. 231. See further, Exp. Lloyd,
sup. p. 576.

680

INTERrRETATION OP STATTJTES.

The County Courts Act (see now s. 74, County
Courts Act, 1888), in making a person subject
to the jurisdiction of the Court of the dis-
trict within which he "dwells or carries on his
business," included under the latter expression
not only a personal carrying on of business, but
oases where it was carried on altogether by an
agent (a). Sec. 6, 24 & 25 Vict. c. 10, which
gave the Admiralty jurisdiction, when the ship-
owner is not domiciled in England, over any claim
of the owner of goods carried into any English
port, for damage done to them by the negligence
or misconduct of, or for " any breach of duty or of
contract" by the shipowner, master, or crew,
seems confined to breaches o;' duty or contract
having some analogy to what is prcided in the
earlier part of the section ; and was therefore held
not to apply to the wrongful refusal of a master
to take a cargo to a port abroad (b).

On the same principle, an Act which prohibits
the "taking or destroying" the spawn of fish
would not include a " taking " of spawn for the
purpose of removing it to another bed; for the
word "destroying," with which "taking" is
associated, indicates that the taking which is

(a) Minor v. London d: N. W. By. Co., 26 L. J. 0. P. 39 ;
Shield) V. Sail, 18 L. J. 0. P. 120. Comp. Be Norris, 5
M. B. B. 111.

(i) The Vannelirog (1874), L. B. 4 A. & E. 386.

■ I: ■!

ASSOCIATED WORDS OF THE SAME KIND. 581

prohibited is dishonest or mischievous (a). And
in an Act which made it penal to " take or kill "
fish without the leave of the owners of the fishery,
the same kind of " taking " was simUarly held to
have been intended (6). An Act which prohibits
the ■' having or keeping " gunpowder, does not
apply to a person who "has" gunpowder for a
merely temporary purpose, as a carrier, the kind of
" having " intended by the Act being explamed by
the word " keeping " with which it is associated (c).
Bo, where an Act punishes the "having in his
possession or conveying " anything suspected of
being stolen and not satisfactorily accounted for,
the former expression is limited by the latter, and
does not, therefore, apply to possession in a
house (d). An Act which made it felony to "cast
away or destroy " a ship was held not to apply to
a case where a ship was run aground or stranded
upon a rock, but was afterwards got ofi' in a

(o) 3 Jao. I. 0. 12 (repealed 24 & 25 Viot. o. 109, s. 39) ;
Bridger v. Biehardim, 15 E. B. 355.

(b) 23 & 23 Car. II. o. 25 (repealed 1 & 2 WUl. IV. o. 32, a. 1) ;
B. V. MaUimon, 2 Burr. 679.

(c) 12 Geo. III. 0. 61 (repealed 23 & 24 Viot. o. 139, s. 1) ;
Bigg, V. MiteUn, 31 L. J. M. C. 163. See B. v. Stmgnell (1865),
35 L. J. M. C. 78. But see ShelUy v. Bethell (1883), 12
Q. B. D. 11 ; 53 L. J. M. C. 16.

(d) a & 3 Viot. 0. 71, s. 24 ; thia section is supplemental only
to 2 & 3 Viot. 0. 47, a. 66, and is qualified thereby ; Hadley v.
Ferhi (1866), L. B. 1 Q. B. 444.

582

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

condition capable of being refitted (a). This rule
was applied to the oonstruotion of the repealed
Act, 1 Vict. c. 85, which made it felony " to shoot,
cut, stab, or wound " ; for the latter term was held
to be restricted, by the verbs which preceded it,
to injuries inflicted by an instrument ; and conse-
quently to bite oflF a finger or a nose, or to burn
the face with vitriol, was not to wound within the
meaning of the Act (6).

One phrase or clause, in the same way, some-
times materially limits the effect of another with
which it is similarly associated. Thus, an Act
which disgavelled lands "to all intents and
purposes," and then went on to make them
" descendible as lands at common law," was held to
disgavel them only for the purposes of descent (c-).
The section of 17 Geo. III. c. 26 (d), which excepted
from the general provisions of the enactment any
" voluntary annuity gruuted without regard to
pecuniary consideration," was construed as using
the word " voluntary," not in its usual legal sense,
as without consideration, but as without pecuniary
consideration (c).

(o) De Londo'8 Cate (1765), 2 East, P. C. 1098.

(b) B. V. Harrk, 7 C. & P. 44G; S. v. Stecem, 1 Moo. C. C.
409 ; B. V. Marrow, Id. 450 ; H. v. Jennimj'a Ca»e, 2 Lewin 0. C.
130. See B. v. Waudhy (1895), 64 L. 3. M. C. 251.

(e) Witeman v. Cotton, 1 Lev. 79.

(d) Bepealed by S. L. E., 1861.

(e) CrespiijHn v. Witleno,,,,,, 4 T. R. 790. See Blake v. Atlertott,
^ B. & C. S75 ; Eiiatt v. Bunt, 22 L. J. y. B. 348.

OENKBIC FOLLOWING BFKCIPIC WOBDS.

r>83

HKOTION V. — GENERIC WOHDS FOLLOWINd MORE
SPECIFIC.

It is, however, the use of a general word follow-
ing (a) one or more less general terms ejusdem
generis, which affords the most frequent illustrafion
of the rule under consideration. Geiwn per apeciem
derogatur. In the abstract, general words, like all
others, receive their full and natural meaning
though they should not be extended so as to
confine matters to which they are obviously not
germane. Thus, as an example of the above
general proposition, s. 3, 3 ct 4 Will. IV. c. 42,
which limits the time for suing " upon any bond or
other specialty," comprehends under the last expres-
sion every kind of specialty, including a statute (h).
In such and cognate cases, the general principle
applies, that the terms are to receive their plain
and ordinary meaning ; and Courts are not at
liberty to impose on them limitations not called
for by the sense, or i;he objects or mischief of the
enactment (c).

Bat the general word which foUows particular
and specific words of the same nature as itself

(o) Not preceding. See ex. gr. Kmg v. George, 5 Ch. D. 627.

((.) Oork & Banilm Bg. Co. v. Ooode, 22 L. J. C. P. 198 ;
discussed and i. stinguislied in Tkotitson v. Clanmorris (Lord)
(1900), 69 L. J. Ch. 337.

(c) Per Cur., U. S. v. Coombs, 12 Peters, 80.

'^Mi

684

INTEBI-BETATION OV HTATUTES,

11

:«a«^

ta] OS its meaning from them, and is presumed to
be restricted to tbe same genus as those words (a) :
or, iu other words, as comprehending only things
of the same kind as those designated by them ;
unless, of course, there 1 ' something to show that
a wider sense was intended.

Thus 8. 43 of the Customs Laws Consolidation
Act, 1876, which provides that "the importation
of arms, ammunition, gunpowder or any other
goods may be prohibited by proclamation iu Order
iu Council," obviously relates only to goods of a
like character or description to those specifically
mentioned — and not to other things of an entirely
different description.

The Sunday Observance Act, 1677 (29 Car. II.
c. 7), which enacts that " no tradesman, artificer,
workman, labourer, or other person whatsoe er,
shall do or exercise any labour, businer-, or
work of their ordinary callings upon the 7 jrd's
Day," has been held not to include a coach
proprieto^(6), a farmer (<;), a barber (d), and possibly
a solicitor (f) ; the word " person " being confined
to followers of callings like those specified by

(a) See per Willes J., Femniek v. Schmuh, L. B. 3 C. P. 313.
(i) Sandiman v. Breach, 31 B. B. 169.

(c) B. V. Cleworth, 4 B. & S. 927, nom. B. v. Silvealer, 33
L. J. M. C. 79.

(d) Palmer v. Snow, [1900] 1 Q. B. 725.

(e) Peate v. Diekin, 4 L. J. Ex. 28.

nKNKRIO FOI.I.OWIN(i Sl'KUlKIC WOUDS.

r.85

the preceding words. F. ■ a similar loasou, the
20 Geo. II. c. 19 (a), which iiupowered justices to
determine differences between masters and " ser-
vants in husbandry, artificers, handicraftsmen,"
and persons in some other specific euiplnyments,
and " all other labourers," did not include a
domestic servant (&), or a man employed to take
care of goods seized uader a writ (c) ; for though
in the abstrnct they may be "lalourers" their
employments havr, no analogy with those specified.
It would include, however, a man who contracted
to work by the piece, not by the day, provided the
relation of master and servant existed {d).

The Metropolitan Building Act, 1865 (e), which
entitled a district surveyor " or other person," to
a mouth's notice of action for anything done uuder
the Act, was held, on thi& principle, not to give
that privilege to every person sued, but to give

(a) Bepealed, 38 & 39 Vict. c. 86, s. 17.

(!>) Kilchm V. .$7iaie, 6 A. & E. 729. Comp. Exp. Hughes, 33
L. J. M. 0. 138 ; Daviei v. Befwick, oO L. J. M. C. 81 ; Morgan,
V. London Oen. Omnibat Co., 13 Q. B. D. 842. See, however, the
oonoluding observations of Fry L.J. in Bound v. Lawrence,
[1892] 1 Q. B. 226. See jo Cook v. North Metrop. Traiiiimyt
Co., 18 Q. B. D. 683.

(c) Brauicell v. Penuerh, 7 B. & C. 536.

(d) Louther v. Badmir, 8 East, 113 ; comji. Lancmler v. Greaves,
9 B. & 0. 628; Exp. Johnson, 7 Dowl. 702; B. v. Ilei/icood,
1 M. & S. 624. See also Gordon v. Jennings, 9 Q. B. D. 4.5.

(«■) Eepealed, 57 & 58 Vict. c. ooxiii., s. 215, Sohed. 4.

5M

INTERI'nETATION OF STATIITIW.

11:.

it only to persons ijuadem yvieria with a district
surveyor ; that is, having an official duty (a). An
Act which empowers Quarter Sessions to order
the treasurer of "the county, riding, division, or
place" to pay costs, only applies to a "place"
ejtudem generis with "county, riding, division,"
that is a place having a separate Court of Quarter
Sessions (A). And s. 76, Larceny Act, 1861 (now
88. 19-22, Larceny Act, 1916), which made it a
misdemeanour for any " banker, merchant, broker,
attorney, or other agent " to convert to his own
use any valuable security entrusted to him for
any special pui-pose, was held not under the words
" or other agent " to include any ordinary agent
who may from time to time be entrusted with
valuable securities, but only persons whose occupa-
tion is similar to those specifically enumerated (c).

(a) Wimam, v. Qotding, h. B. 1 0. P. 69. dump. Nevlm v.
mu, 34 L. J. Q. B. 337. See oontra Driffield Ob. v. Waterloo
Co., 31 Oh. D. 638. As to the existing law relating " to notioe,"
see Public Authorities Protection Act, 1898, and see a. 216 of
57 & 58 Vict. 0. coxiii. as to continuance of provisions in
preceding London Buildings Acts until specifically revoked.

(») Vagrancy Act, 1824, 6 Geo. IV. c. 83, s. 9. So much of
thib section as relates to costs is repealed by 8 Edw. VII. o. 15,
s. 10, and Sohed. As to existing law, see s. 3, Costs in Criminal
Oases Act, 1908 ; R. v. Wal Siding JJ., [1900] 1 Q. B. 391.

(c) 24 & 25 Vict. 0. 96, s. 75 of the Larceny Act, 1861, is
repealed and re-enacted in an amplified form by 1 Edw. VII.
0. 10; S. V. Portugal, 16 Q. B. D. 487; B. v. Prince, 2 0. & P.
517 ; B. V. iJiine, 70 L. J. K. B. 143.

OINEBIC FOLLOWISd urBTIKIC WoRDK.

587

In au Act imposing a penalty ou unqualified
persons navigating " any wherry, lighter, or other
craft," the last word would include only vessels
of the same kind as wherries and lighters, not
steam tugs which carried neither passengers nor
goods (a). But the same word would be more
comprehensive if it had followed "boats and
vessels " (h). A prohibition against deducting from
an artificer's wages any part of them " for frame
rent and standing, or other charges," would not
include, under the last word, a fine incurreu for
breach of agreement (c).

The Distress for Rent Act, 1737 (11 Geo. II.
0. 19), which by s. 8 authorises the distress for it
of " com, grass, or other product " growing on .lie
demised lands, includes only products similar to
grass and com ; but not young trees, which, though
unquestionably products of the land, are of a
different character from the products specified by
the earlier terms (d). For the same reason, young
trees ore not included in the Act which punishes

(a) '/ 4 8 Geo. IV. o. Ixxv., s. 37 ; Beeii v. Ingham (1864), 23
L. J. M. C. 156. The words "any Cathedral, Collegiate,
Chapter, or other Schools " in the jiroviao at the end of a. 62 of
the Charitable Trusts Aot, 1853, 16 & 17 Vict. o. 137 (partly
repealed by S. L. R., 1875), were similarly oonstraed in Stock-
port Schooh, Re (1898), 68 L. J. Ch. 41.

(6) TMell V. Coutbe, 7 .'V. & E. 788.

(c) Wniii V. Thorp, 44 L J. Q. B. 137.

(■i) mark V. Qaikarth (1818), 8 Taunt. 431.

088 INTERPBBTATION OP BTATDTEB.

the Stealing of " any plant, root, fruit, or vegetable
production growing in a garden, orchard, nurseiy-
ground, hothouse or conservatory " (a).

An Act which prohibited playing or betting in
the streets " at or with any table or instrument of
gaming," would not include, under the last general
words, haJf-penue used for tossing for money (6).
A by-law which imposed a penalty for causing an
obstruction in the street in various specified ways,
all of a temporary character, or otherwise causing
or committing " any other obstruction, nuisance,
or annoyance " in any of the streets, was held not
to include, under the latter words, any obstruction
which was not of a temporary character (e).

The enactment which prohibited the establish-
ment, without license, of " the business of a blood
boiler, bone boiler, fellmonger, slaughterer of cattle,
horses, or animals of any description, soap boiler,
tallow melter, tripe boiler, or other noxious or
offensive business, trade, or manufacture," was
held not to include under the final general terms
any employments not connected, as all the specified

(o) B. V. Hodges, 1 Moo. & iM. 341. See Badnonhire Bd.
V. Evam, 32 L. T. M. 0. 100; Smith v. Bamham, 1 Ex. D. 419.

(6) Watiion V. Martin, 34 L. J. M. 0. 60, rectified by 36 & 37
Vict. c. 38, s. 3 ; Birst v. Molealmry, L. E. 6 Q. B. 130. Comp.
B. V. CCoBBor, 15 Cox C. C. 3. See further, ToUet v. Thomc^
24 L. T. 508. '

(<•) B. V. Dickeiumu, 26 L. J. M. C. 204.

GENERIC FOLLOWIKG SPECIFIC WORDS. 589

trades were, with animal matter ; and so did not
reach briok-making (a), nor a small-pox hospital (A).
A fishing net with an illegally small mesh is not
an " instrument " within the Salmon Fishery Acts
which prohibit the use of " any otter lath, or jack'
wire or snare, spear, gaflf, strokehall, snatch, or
other like instrument for the purpose of catching
salmon " (c).

A bill of sale, by the yearly tenant of a dwelling,
house, of all the household goods, furniture, and
other household effects in and about the dweUing-
house, "and aU other the personal estate whatso-
ever," of the assignor, was held not to pass his
term or interest in the house (d). So, a Will,
which, after enumerating in a bequest furniture^
plate, linen, china, and pictures, added " all other
goods, chattels, and effects which shall be in the
house" at the time of the testator's death, did
not include a sum of money then in the house (e).

(o) 11 & 12 Viot. o. 63, B. 64, repealed by 38 & 39 Viot. o. 35,
B. 343, Sohed. V, pt. III. ; Watutead Board v. Bill (1863) 32
L. J. M. 0. 138.

(b) 38 & 39 Viot. o. 56, s. 112 ; Withington L. Bd. v. Manchester
Corp. (1893), 62 L. J. Oh. 393. Cm„p. Metropolitan Asulunu
District V. Bill, 50 L. J. Q. B. 353 ; Passey v. Oxford, 43 J. P. 622.

(«) 24 & 25 Viot. 0. 109, a. 8 ; amended by 36 k 37 Viot. o.
71, a. 18 ; Jones v. Davies, 67 L. J. Q. B. 294.

{d) Earritou v. Blackburn, 34 L. J. 0. P. 109. Comp.
Singer v. Conn, 7 L. J. Ex. 108.

(e) Oibbt V. Lawrence (1860), 30 L. J. Ch. 170. DisouBsed in

(

590

INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTEa

Ifjlflf

And the rules of an indnstrial society, established
to carry on the business of general dealers, farmers,
and manufacturers, which provided that the profits
of the business should be applied either to increase
the capital, reserve fund, or business ol the society,
" or to any lawful purpose," and that the remainder,
less any grant that might be made for educational
purposes, should be divided among the members,
have been held not to authorise a subscription to
a strike fund, that not being a lawful purpose
ejusdem ffeneris with increasing the capital, reserve
fund, or business of the society (a).

An Act (6) which gives a vote to the occupier of
a "house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or
other building," includes, in the latter term,
only buildings which, like those specifically men-
tioned, are of some permanence and utility, and
contribute to the beneficial occupation of the
land, increasing thereby its value (c). The words

MaePhail v. Phillipt, [1904] 1 Ir. B., at p. 1S9 ; Bridgeman v.
FitigerM, 50 L. J. Ch. 9. See also Mantm v. Taboit, 54 L. J. Oh.
1008. See, however, AnderBon v. Anderion, 64 L. J. Q. B. 457.

(o) Warburlon v. Huddenfidd Industrial Socy., [1892] 1 Q. B.
817. As to obligatory Rules and Amendments, see 56 & 57
Viot. 0. 39, s. 10, and Sohed. II.

(d) 2 & 3 Will. IV. 0. 45, s. 27, repealed by 7 & 8 Geo. V.
c. 64, B. 47, and Sohed. VIII., which Act see.

(c) Powell V. Bortuton (1864), 34 L. J. C. P. 73. See also
Morith V. Barrln, L. R. 1 C. P. 155. Comp. Hodgson v. Jex,
2 Ch. D. 122 ; Chapmtin v. Chapman, 4 Id. 800.

OBNEBIO FOLLOWING SPECIFIC WORDS. 591

"tenements and hereditaments," which, in their
techmcal sense, embrace not only every species of
right connected with land, such as rents, tithe,
rights of common, seignorial rights, but also offices'
have been confined to habitable structures, when
coupled with and foUowing such words as " houses,
warehouses, and shops "(a). Where an Act (h)
authorised the poUce to enter any house or room
used for stage plays, and imposed a penalty for
keeping any house or other " tenement " as m
unlicensed theatre; it was held that the word
•' tenement " was confined in meaning to some-
thing of the same character as "house" or
"room," and so did not include a pori;able booth,
oonsistmg of two waggons joined together, and
used as a theatre by strolling players (c)

Sec. .33, 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 90, which enacted
that the owners of" houses, buildings, and property
other than land," rateable to the poor, should be
rated at thrice the rate imposed on the owners of
land, was held confined to that kind of " property
other than land," which was ejusdem generis with
"houses and buildings," and that a railway, a

(o) B. V. Maneheater Waterworks Co., 1 B. & 0. 630 ; R. y.
E<ul London Watemorlct Co., 21 L. J. M. 0. 49. See also CheUea
WatenrorU v. Bowley, 20 L. J. Q. B. 520 ; Metrop. By. v Fouler
[1893] A. 0. 416 ; B. v. IfeviUe, IS L. J. M. 0. 33.

(6) 2 & 3 Viot. e. 47, B. 46.

(c) Frederick) v. Howie (1862), 31 L. J. M. 0. 249 ; Dag v.

Si

npaon (1865), 34 L. .f. M. C. 149, sap. p. 211.

002

INTEBPRBTATION f / STATUTES.

canal, with its towing-paths, and a dry dock lined
with masonry, which were its accessories, wore not
comprised in the expression, but were rateable as
land (a). On the same principle, s. 79, Companies
Act 1862 (repealed by s. 129, Companies (Consolida-
tion) Act, 1908), which provides that a company
may be wound up by the Court of Chancery when
the company passes a resolution in favour of that
course, or does not begin business within a year,
or its memberp are reduced to less than seven,
or when the Court thinks a winding-up "just
and equitable," empowers the Court by these
last general words to wind up only when it is
just and equitable on grounds analogous to those
preoedingly stated (ft).

Of course, the restricted meaning, which primarily
attaches to the general word in such circumstances,
is rejected when there are adequate grounds to

(o) R V. Neath (1871), L. B. 6 Q. B. 707 ; S. v. Midland By.
Co. (1875), 44 L. J. M. 0. 137. Camp. B. v. Midland By. Co.
(18S5), 4 E. & B. 958.

(6) Spademan's Cane (1849), 1 MoN. <fc G. 170 ; Anglo-Greek
Steam Co., Be (1866), L. E. 2 Eq. 1 ; Langham Bink Co., Be, 46
L. J. Ch. 345. See, however, inter alia. Suburban Hotel Co., Be
(1867), 36 L. J. Oh. 710; German Date Coffee Co., Be, 51
L. J. Ch. 564 ; ChicLim, Be, 74 L. J. Ch. 597; Melson, Be, 75
L. J. Ch. 509; Crigglettone Co., Be, 75 L. J. Ch. 662; Stephens
V. Mysore Beefs Mining Co. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch. 295 ; Symington,
Be, 43 So. L. B. 167. See under the Apportionment Act, 1870,
33 & 34 Vict. c. 35, Coi't Trmts, Be, 47 L. J. Ch. 735-

GENERIC FOLLOWMO SPECIFIC WOBDS. 893

show that it was not used in the limited order of
ideas to which its predecessors belong. If it
can be seen from a wider inspection of the scope
of the legislation that the general words, notwith-
standing that they follow particular words, are
nevertheless to be construed generaUy, effect
must be given to the intention of the Legislature
as gathered from the larger survey. Upon this
principle it has been held that, having regard to
the object of s. 32, Patents, Designs, and Trade
Marks Act, 1883 (r-pealed, s. 36, Patents and
Designs Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII. c. 29), as seen on a
consideration of the whole section, and the law
existing at the time of its enactment, in construing
the r-*erence to threats of legal proceedings " by
circulars, advertisements, or otherwise," which it
contains, the words " or otherwise " are not to be
restricted to threats by measures ejusdem generis
with circulars or advertisements, but are to be
regarded as extending the previous words, so as
absolutely to prohibit any threats whatever of
legal proceedings by a patentee for the infringe-
ment of his patent, unless they are followed up
speedily by an action (a). And where an inspector

(o) Skinner & Co. v. Shew & Co. (1892), 62 L. J. Ch. 196,
distinguiBhed in Seven v. Wehhach Incandeecent Gtu Light Co.,
[1902] 20 B. P. C. 69, p. 73. As to what constitutes a threat of
proceedings, see Diammi Coal Cutter Co. v. Minim, Appliancet Co.,
[1915] W. N. 340.

I-S- 38

?IPI>M j

694

INTBBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

m

of nuisanoeB was aathcrised to inspect articles of
food deposited in " any place " for sale, and a
penalty was imposed on persons who prevented
him from entering any " slaughter-house, shop,
building, market, or other place," where any
carcase was deposited for sale ; it was held that
the latter word was not confined to places ejusdem
generis with those which preceded it. The earlier
passage, giving authority to enter " any place,"
obviously required that the same word should
receive an equally extensive meaning in the sub-
sequent passage (a). Sec. 53, Public Health Act,
1848(6), whic] imposed a penalty for making
any " sewer, drain, privy, cesspool, ashpit, buUd-
ing, or other work, contrary to the provisions of
the Act," included, under the word " building,"
not only constructions of a character similar to
those previously mentioned, but also dwelling-
houses (e). And where a special Act passed in
1767 authorised the owner of a bridge to take
a toll on " every coach, chariot, berUn, hearse,
chaise, chair, cabash, wagon, wain, dray, cart,
car, or other carriage whatsoever," the ejusdem
generis principle was not applied, and, on the ground

(a) Yamg v. Orattridge, L. B. i Q. B. 166. See also Harris v.
Jennt, 30 L. J. M. 0. 183.

(6) BepeiJed by 38 & 39 Vict. o. 55, s. 343, Sohed. V., pt. 3.

(c) Pearson v. Ktngtion (18f )), 35 L. J. M. 0. 36. See
Mo.M V. Hurrie, 35 L. J. C. P. 101.

OEVEBIO TOLLOWIKG SPECIFIC WORDS. 595

that the Legislature intended every vehicle passing
over the bridge to pay toll, a bicycle was held to
be a " carriage " within the Act (a).

When justices, empowered to prepare a standaid
for an equal county rate, were authorised for this
purpose to direct overseers, assessors of rates, and
other persons having the r ■ agement of the rates
or valuations, to make returns of the auuual value
of the property in the parish, and to require " the
said overseers, assessors, collectors, and any other
persons whomsoever," to produce parochial and
other rates and valuations, "and other documents
in their custody or power," the context showed
that the final generic expression was not confined
to official, but extended to private, persons (A).
So, where an Act imposed a rate on a variety
of tenements and buildings which were enume-
rated, and on " other buUdings and hereditaments,
meadow and pasture excepted," the exception
appended to the concluding general words showed
that the latter were used in their widest sense,
and were not limited in meaning by the particular
terms which preceded them (<;).

(«) Cannan v. Abin/jdim (1900), 69 L. J. Q. B. 517. (hmp.
Plymouth Tramicay do. v. General Tolls Go., 75 L. T. 467. But
see Smpton v. Teignnumth Bridge Co., 72 L. J. K. B. 204 ; Smith
V. KymurOey, 72 L. J. K. B. 357.

(6) B. V. Donbleday, 3 E. & E. .501.

(c) B. V. Shrembury Gat Co., 1 L. J. M. C. 18.

506

INTEBFBETATION OF BTATUTKS.

Further, the general principle in question applies
only where the specific words are all of the same
nature. Where they are of different genera, the
meaning of the general word remains unaffected
by its connection with them. Thus, where an
Act made it penal to convey to a prisoner, in
order to facilitate his escape, " any mask, dress, or
disguise, or any letter, or any other ariade or
thing," it was held that the last general terms
were to be understood in their primary and wide
meaning, and as including any article or thing
whatsoever Which could in any manner facilitate
the escape of a prisoner, such as a crowbar (a).
Here, the several particular words "disguise"
and " letter," exhausted the whole genera ; and
the last general words must be understood, there-
fore, as referring to other genera.

The general object of the Act, also, sometimes
requires that the final generic word shaU not be
restricted in meaning by its predecessors. Thus,
17 Geo. III. c. 66, s. 10, which, after reciting that
stolen materials used in certain manufactures
were often concealed in the possession of persons
who had received them with guilty knowledge,
and that the discovery and conviction of the
offenders was in consequence difficult, proceeded
to authorise justices to issue search warrants for

(o) B. V. Payne. 35 L. J. M. C. 170. See also Shittito v.
Thompson, 1 Q. B. D. 12.

OBNEBIO POU,OWn«0 BPECIPIO WORM 597

purloined materials suspected to be concealed "in
any dwelling-house, outhouse, yard, garden, or
other place," was held to include, under the last
word, a warehouse which was a mile and a half
from the dwelling-house (a). Though such a
warehouse would probably not be usually con-
sidered as ejusdem generis mth a "dwelling-house "
coupled with its enumerated dependencies, it wis
reasonable, having regard to the preamble and
the general object of the statute, to think that
the warehouse was within the contemplation of the
Legislature, as it was a very likely place for the
concealment against which the enactment was
directed ; and a narrower construction would have
restricted the effect, instead of promoting the
object of the Act. The requirement of s 32

5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76(b), that municipal voting
papers should be signed by the voter, and state
the name of the " street, lane, or place," in which
the property was situated in respect of which he
claimed to vote, was considered satisfied by a
statement of the parish where the property lay;
the object of the provision being, apparently, the
identification of the voter ((,).

Several decisions on a recent enactment are

(a) S. V. Md:uu«dmn (1859), 28 L. J. M. 0. 213.

(6) Repealed by 46 & 40 Vict. o. .50, b. 5.

(c) Per Lord Campbell and Crompton J., B. v. Spratley,

6 E. & B. 363. See Loalher v. Benlinci, L. E. 19 Eq. 166.

SOS

INTERPRETATION Of BTATWTIW.

,' I I

iustraotiye examples of the applioatiou of the
above-mentioned rules, as to the efieot of words of
analogous meaning on each other, and of specific
words on the more general one, which closes the
enumeration of them ; as well as of their subordi-
nation to the more general principle of gathering
the intention from a review of the whole enact-
ment, and giving effect to its paramount object.
The 16 & 17 Vict. c. 119, s. 5, after reciting that a
kind of gaming had lately sprung up, to the de-
moralisation of improvident persons, by opening
places called betting-houses or offices, enacts, for
the better suppression of them, that any person who,
being " the owner or occupier of any house, oflSoe,
room, or place," should "open, keep, or use," or
" knowingly permit " it to be used for the purposes
of betting, should be liable to a penalty of £50, and
to an action for the recovery of any deposit made
with him in respect of the bet. The Exchequer
Chamber held that a man who habitually resorted
to a certain spot under a tree in Hyde Park, and
there made bets, was not the "occupier" of the
place within the meaning of the Act, as that
expression derived a meaning from the' one with
which it was coupled, which implied some legal
and exclusive title to the place («). Again, where
the owners of a racecourse knowingly permitted the

(o) Doggell v. Callerw, (1865), 34 L. J. C. P. 159. See also
Thuailet v. CouUhaa!te (1896), 65 L. J. Oh. 238.

OINEBic roM,owiNa rproipic wnRi>m. sno

pnblio, on tho payment of an entrance fee, to enter
an nnoovered enclosure adjacent to a raoeconrse
where race meetings were held, nc of whom
went for the purpose of backing horses with book-
makers, who were admitted on the same terms as
the public, and had no special rights in the
enclosure, the House of Lords held that the
enclosure so used was not " a place opened, kept
or used for betting with persons resorting thereto "
within the Act (a). But a temporary wooden
structure, erected on a piece of ground rented by
the person who used it for betting purposes, though
unroofed and not fixed to the soil, was held to
be a " place " within the Act (A) ; and in another
case, a man who carried on the same business,
standing on a stool sheltered under a large um-
brella on which was printed an indication of the
business, was held to be the "occupier of a
place " within the Act ; as he had in fact appro-
priated it for his proceedings, though he paid
no rent and had no greater right to stand on
the spot than any others of the public who were
admitted (c). In order that a case may come

(o) Poaett V. KempUm Raceccurte Cn. (1899), 68 L. J. Q. B.

(t) S.au V. Morlen, 37 L. J. M. C. 105.

(c) Boat V. Fenuiick (1874), 43 L. J. M. C. 107, approved
in Powell v. Kempton RacerouTte Co.f snp. ; and applied in
TkvaUee v. Coulihaatte (1896), 65 L. J. Ch. 238. Sec similar

600

nmSBPHETATlON Or UTATimw,

I

I

within 1. 1 of tU* Aot, it ii not neoeiMTy that
the receipt of the money ehonld take place at
the houM, or oflBoe, or even within the United
Kingdom (a).

AnalogouB to the rnleg above considered is
another, that when words descriptive of the rank
of persons or things are used in a descending order
according to rank, the general words superadded
to them do not include (though standing alone
they would do so) persons or things of a higher
rank or importance than the highest named, if
there be any lower species to which they can apply.
In such a case, the general word is taken not as
generic, but as including only what is lower in
the genus than the lowest specified. Thus, s. 3,
13 Eliz. 0. 10, which avoided conveyances by
masters and fellows of coUeges, deans and chapters

I Omlowag V. Maru,,. 81 h. J. M. 0. 68, oritioised in Pomitt
V. Kemplm Baeeeoum Co., gup. p. 699; Liddstt v. Lo/thouu, 65
L. J. M. 0. 64 ; M'Inany v. BildrM, 66 L. J. Q. B. 376 ; B. v
Bumphrey,, 67 h. J. Q. B. 634 ; Bnum v. Patch. [1899] 1 Q B
892 ; Bellon v. Bu,!y, 68 L. J. Q. B. 869 ; Ihman. y. EodUn,^,
72 L. J. K. B. 21 : B. v. DeanBe, Id. 272. See also, in con-
necdon with simiUr enaotments, LangrUh ". Archer, 52 h. J.
M. C. 47 ; Taylor v. Smetten, 62 L. J. M. C. 101.

(a) Lennox v. Stoddart (1902), 71 L. J. K, B. 747. It should
be noted that s. 5 of the Betting Act, 1853, is not impliedly
repealed by s. 1 of the Gaming Act, 1892. See Lemi,«t v
Stoddart.

i' "ff

WOHI* or KAKK IN nTOCKUDIXO OBrKR. flOJ

of oathedraU, parsons, vioars, and " otliers Imviug
any spiritual or ecolesiastioal linng," does not
include bishops (a).

Chap. 28, Statutes of Marlbridge, 52 Hen. III.,
which gave a right of action in certain cases to
" abbots, priors, and other prelates of the Church,"
did not, according to Lord Coke, include bishops ;
because, among other reasons, the bishop is of a
higher degree than an abbot {/>). It may be pre-
sumed that there were prelates o' a lower degree
than abbots and priors, otherwise the generic
expression so construed would have been without
effect. To avoid this the rule in question would
be rejected, and the general term would receive
its full and natural meaning, and include th,
higher denominations (c). Duties imp^jed, under
the general head of "metals" upon "cojiper,
brass, pewter, and tin, and on all other metals not
enumerated," would not include the higher metals
of gold or silver; which are commonly known as
precions metals (il).

The 22 & 23 Car. II. o. 25(,), which empowered
the lords of "manors and other royalties" to

(0) Arehbp. of Canterbury' t Cast, 2 Hep. 46b; (SjjJanrf v.
Poaell, 1 Bing. 373 ; Cope v. Barter, L. R. 7 C. P. 393.

(1) 2 lust. 151, 457, 478 ; 2 Rep. 4Cb.

(c) a Inst. 137.

(d) CatKe v. BiHwes (1831), 2 B. & Ad. 592, per Parke .T.

(e) Repealed by 1 & 3 WUl. K. c. 32, s. 1.

i

602

INTKRrBrTATTON OF STATUTES.

I

if

|:

■''r

grant a deputation to a gamekeeper, was limited to
the lords of such royalties as are inferior to manors ;
for if a royalty of a higher uatiire had been meant,
it would have preceded the term "manor" (a).

2 Westm. c. 47, which prohibited salmon-fish-
ing from Lady-day to St. Martin's, in " the waters
of the Humber, Owse, Trent, Done, Arre, Dere-
went, Wherfe, Nid, Yore, Swale, Tese, Tine,
Eden, and all other waters wherein salmons be
taken," was considered as including, in the final
general expression, only rivers inferior to those
enumerated, and therefore as not comprising while
illud flumen, the Thames (6). It does not appear
whether the rivers specified were named in order
of descending importance. An Act (since repealed)
which punished cruelty to any " horse, mare,
gelding, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, sheep, or other
cattle," was held not to include a buU (c).

It was, indeed, once thought that in 14 Geo. II.
c. 6(d), which made it a capital felony to steal
sheep or "other cattle," this last expression was
"much too loose" to include any other cattle
than those already specified, viz., sheep, but this

(o) Ailedmrji v. PattiBon, 1 Doug. 28. See also Evava v.
Stevens (1791), i. T. E. 224, 459.
(6) 2 Inat. 478.

(c) 3 Geo. IV. c. 71 ; Eill, Ewp. (1827), 33 B. B. 6G4 ; 3
Car. & P. 225.

(d) Repealed 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 27, s. 1.

WOBDS OP RANK IN nESCENniNG ORDER.

fi08

extreme strictness of construction may be, perhaps,
best attributed to the excessive severity of the
law in question (a).

A statute which spoke of indictments before
justices of the peace and "others having power
to take indictments," was understood, on the
general ground under consideration, as not apply-
ing to the Superior Courts {h). But 11 & 12 Vict.
c. 42 (c), which authorises justices of the peace to
inquire into indictable ofifences committed on the
high seas or abroad, and to bind the witnesses to
appear at the next " court of Oyer and Terminer,
or jail delivery, or superior court of a County
Palatine, or the Quarter Sessions," would authorise
a justice to hold an inquir ' into an offence com-
mitted by a Colonial Governor in his colony,
which is triable by the Queen's Bench. That
court was included in the words, " court of Oyer
and Terminer " (d).

SECTION VI. — MKANING OF SOME PARTICULAR
EXPRESSIONS.

It may be convenient to mention, in conclusion,
the meaning in which a few words and expressions

(a) 1 Bl. Comm. 88. Coiiij). Cliihl v. flenni, L. H. 9 Ex.
176 ; Fletch«r v. Sondes, 30 E. B. 32 ; B. v. Paly, 2 W. Bl. 721 ;
Wright V. Peanon, h. B. 4 Q. B. 582.

(6) 2 Bop. 4Gb. («) Sdcs. 1 (1) n,nd 2.

(d) B. V. £yre (1868), L. E. 3 Q. B. 487.

■)■■■

I

604

INTEBPBETATION OP STATUTEa

in frequent use in statutes are, in general, under-
stood.

Unless the contrary intention appears, in
statutes passed after 1860, words importing the
masculine gender include females, the singular
includes the plural, and tfcfl plural the singular;
the expression " person " a " body corporate " (a) ;
the word " county " means also county of a town
or of a city ; the word " land " includes messuages,
tenements, and hereditaments, houses, and build-
ings of any tenure; the words "oath," "swear,"
and "affidavit," include affirmation, declaration,
affirming and declaring, in the case of persons
by law allowed to declare or affirm, instead of
swearing ; and the word " month " means calendar
month (A). But "six months" may sometimes
mean the period between two feast days, as
between Michaelmas and Lady-day (c). Half a
year consists of 182, and a quarter of a year of 91,
days (d).

Expressions of time in an Act of Parliament
mean (unless it is otherwise specifically stated)

(a) MomeUv. L. * N. W. By. Co., [1917] 2 K. B., at p. 842.

(6) Interpretation Act, 1889, 52 & 53 Vict. o. 63, ss. 1, 3, i.

(c) See Morgan v. Daviee, 3 C. P. D. 260. See, however,
generally, Walker v. Comtabh, 3 Wils. 25 ; Roger, v. EM Dock
Co., 34 L. J. Ch. 165 ; Wilkimon v. Calvert, 47 L. J. 0. P. 679 ;
Barlom v. Teal, 54 L. J. Q. B. 400.

(<;) Co. Litt. 135h ; 6 Eep. 61b ; Cro. Jac. 167.

'ili

COMPITTATION OF TIMR

606

in Great Britain, Greenwich mean time, and in
Ireland, Dublin mean time (a). But " statutory
time" in summer is one hour in advance of
Greenwich mean time (6). In the computation
of time, distmctions have been made by the
Courts which were founded chiefly on oonsidera-
tions ol jonvenience and justice. The general
rule, anciently, seems to have been that both terms
or endings of the period given for doing or suffering
something were included ; but when a penalty or
forfeiture was involved in non-compliance with
a condition within the given time, the time was
reckoned by including one and excluding the
other of the terminal days(c). A distinction was
afterwards made, depending on whether the point
from which the computation was to be made vas
an act to which the person against whom the time
ran, was privy or not. Thus, if the time ran
" from " when he was arrested, or received a
notice of action, it might justly be computed as
including the day of that event; but not so, if it
ran from the death of another person (d) ; a fact

(a) 43 & 44 Vict. o. 9.

(6) 6 A 7 Geo. V. c. 14 ; 6 & 7 Geo. V. o. 45. Those pro-
visions as to time have been extended by Order in Council to
the Isle of Man.

(c) De Morgan, Comp. Aim. oited in Sir G. C. Lewis' Oba.
and Beas. in Politics, vol. I. 387 u.

(d) Per Sir W. Grant, Letter v. Oarlaiid, 15 Ves. 253 ; per
Parke B., Young v. Hiijgon, 6 M i W. 53 ; Neieman v. BardteicJcc,

606

INTEKPBETATIOK OF BTATDTBS.

II

of which he would not, as in the previous oases,

necessarily be cognisant, or, in other words, in suoh

and cognate cases the exact meaning is signified by

the phrase " from and after " (a). But it has also

been laid down that when a period of time allowed

to a person is included between the dates of two

acts to be done by another person, as where it is

enacted that no action shall be brought against a

justice until notice of the intention to bring it has

been given to him a month before the writ is

issued, both the terminal days are to be excluded (ft).

The notice having been given on the 28th of April,

the action, it was held, was rightly brought on the

. 29th of May; what was requisite was that two

days of the same number should not be comprised

in the computation (c). An Act which received

3 Nev. A P. 368. iiauranoe against aooidents for twelve

months "from " Nov. 24th, 1887, covers an accident occurring

on Nov. 24th, 1888; South Staffordthire Tramways Co. v. The

Sicknets <t Accident Aimrance Assoeialion (1890), 60 L. J. Q. B.

47, to the contrary aiasiinglon v. Bawliw) (1800), 3 Bast, 407 ;

applied Migolti v. Cohill (1878), 48 L. J. M. C. 48.
(a) Sheffield Corp. v. Sheffield Electric Light Co., [18981 1 Oh

at p. 209.
(6) 24 Geo 11. e. 44, s. 1. Per Alderson B., Young v. Higgon

(1840), 6 M. <fe W. 54. See Pelleu, v. Won/ord, 9 B. & C. 134 ;

Blunt V. Henlop, 47 R. E. 664 ; B. v. West Biding, 23 E. B .421 ;

Week) V. Wray, L. E. 3 Q. B. 212.

(c) Preeman v. Read, 30 L. J. M. C. 1S?3 See also Webb v.
Fairmaner, 7 L. J. Ex. 140; B. v. Piic-j, 8 Moo. P. C. 203;
Migotti V. ColMl, 4 C. P. D. 233 ; Southam, Be, 51 L. J. Ch. 207.'

COMPUTATION- OP TIME. 607

the Boyal assent on August 9, 1899, gave a
company power to take lands, which was to cease
after three years from the passing of the Act.
The company served a notice to treat for the
purchase of lands on August 9, 1902 ; it was held
that the notice was served in time, it being now a
woH^PstabHshed rule that where a particular time
isg.7en, from a certain date, within which an
act is to be done, the day of the date is to be
excluded (a).

Again, when so many "clear days "(A), or so
many days "at least "(c) are given to do an act,
or " not less than " so many days are to intervene,
both the terminal days are excluded from the
computation (rf). In other cases, it would seem,
the rule is to exclude the first and include the last
day (<;). In order to satisfy the provision of s. 1,

(a) Goldmitha Co. v. West Uetrop. Sy., 73 L. J. K. B. 931.

(6) B. V. Bere/ordsUre Jm., 3 B. & Aid. 581 ; Liffir, v. Pitcher,
6 .fur. 537. See Walker v. Crystal Palace Gas Co., 60 |L. J.
Q. B. 781. Disaanted from in The Courier (1891), 61 L. J. P.
11 ; Cffaro V. ElUoit (1893), 62 L. J. Q. B. 317.

(c) Zouch V. Empaey, 4 B. & Aid. 523 ; B. v. Salop, 8 A. & E
173.

(d) Bailway Sleeper, Co., Be, 29 Ch. D. 204 ; RMnm» v.
WadAingUm, 18 L. J. Q. B. 250; McQueen v. Jackson, 72 L. J.
K. B. 606 : Enmierton v. Oliver, 43 So. L. R. 291.

(e) See Arohb. Pr. p. 66, 25th ed.; BadcUffe v. Bartholomew,
[1892] 1 Q. B. 161 ; 61 L. J. M. C. 63 ; William, v. Burgc,,, 12
A. & E. 635. Sundays have been held included in computation

608

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (now s. 1, Bankruptcy Act,
1914), which enacts that a debtor oommits an act
of bankruptcy if execution has been levied by
seizure of his goods and the sheriff has held them
for 21 days— it is necessary that the sheriff should
hold the goods for 21 whole days, excluding the
day of seizure (a).

When a statute requiies that something shall
be done "forthwith," or "immediately," or even
"instantly," it, would, probably, be understood as
allowing a reasonable time for doing it (6). An
application to deprive a plaintiff of costs, which
must be made " at the trial," was deemed made in
time, when made an hour after the trial was over,
and the judge was trying another cause (c).

unless expressly excepted, B. v. Middletex JJ. (1843), a Dowl.
(N. 8.), at p. 724. But see B. S. C, Ord. LXIV. r. 2; and
Milch V. Frankaa, [1909] 2 K. B. 100.

(a) fie North, [1895] 2 Q. B. 264.

(6) See To™ v. Wilnm, 32 L. J. Q. B. 382 ; Brighty v. -Vor/on,
Id. 38 ; Foradike v. Stone. L. B. 3 C. P. 607 ; per Oookbum C.J.,
Griffith V. Taylor, 2 C. P. D. 202 ; Maatey v. Sladm, L. B. 4 Ex.
13 ; S. V. Asbm, 19 L. J. M. 0. 236 ; Hancock v. Soma, 28 L. J.
M. 0. 196; Cottar v. Hetherington, Id. 198; per Bolfa B.,
Thompson v. Oihxm, 10 L. J. Ex. 243 ; per Cookbum 0..J., B. v.
BerhMre Jm., 48 L. J. M. C. 137. Co,np. Exp. SilUnce, 47
L. J Bank. 87; Gibb, v. Stead, 8 B. & C. 533 ; Tennant v. Bett,
16 L. J. M. C. 31; Lowe v. Fox, 15 Q. B. D. 667. See
further, Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, tit. " Fohthwith " and
" Immediately."

(c) Order LXV. B. S. C ; Kynatton v. Mmkinder, 47 L. J. Q. B.

CCMPUTATION OF TIME. gOO

If the statute require some act to be done
periodically and recurrently once in a certain
space of time, as, for instance, the inspection of
the boilers of steamers once in six months, it
would probably be understood to mean that not
more than six mouths should elapse betv/een tho
two acts. It would not be satisfied by dividing
the year into two equal per'ods, and doing the
act once in the beginning of the first, and once
at the end of the second period (a). A repealed
Act which imposed a penalty for absence for more
than a certain time in any one year, means not a
calendar year computed from tho 1st of January,
but a year computed back from the day when the
action for the penalty was brought (A).

It used to be laid down as a general rule that
Courts refused to take notice of the fraction of a
day, for the uncertainty, which is always the
mother of confusion and contention (c) : and in
civil cases, a judicial act, such as a judgment, is
taken conclusively to have been done at the first

^11

76. See also Page v. Penrce, 10 L. J. Ex. 434. Gomp. R. v.
Berks, i Q. B. D. 469.

(a) Virginia d: Maryland St. Nav. Co, v. U. S., Taney & Camp-
bell's Maryland Bep. 418.

(I) 43 Geo. III. 0. 84, repealed and re-enacted witli
restrictions as to non-residence by 1 & 2 Vict. c. 100, s. 32 ;
Calhcart v. Harihj (1814), 2 M. & S. 534.

(c) ClaytoWg Case, G Rep. Ih.

I.S.

39

610

ISTERPBET&TtON OP BTATUTE8.

moment of the day (a). But as regards the acts
of parties, including in this expression acts whioh,
though in form judicial, are in reality the acts of
parties, the Courts do notice such fractions, when-
ever it is necessary to decide which of two events
first happened (A). Thus, they will notice the
hour when a party issued a writ of summons, or
filed a bill, or delivered a declaration, or the
sheriff seizrd goods (c). A person who was keep-
ing a dog at tioon without a license would not
escape from conviction by procuring a license at
one p.m. ((/). Where the title of the Crown and
of the subject accrue on the same day, the title of
the Crown is proferred (e).

Sundays are included in computations of time,
except when the time limited is less than six days,

(o) ShelUtj't Cam, 1 Bep. 93b ; Wright v. Uilh, 28 L. J. Ex.
223. See also Re North, [1895] 3 Q B. 264.

[h) Per Grove J., Campbell v. Strangeway; 3 0. P. D. 107 ;
per Lord Mansfield, Gombe v. Pitt, 3 Burr. 1434 ; per Fatteson J.,
Chick V. Smith, 8 Dowl. 340 ; por Cur., B. v. Edwards (1853),
23 L. J. Ex. 42 ; Maniall v. Jamet (1874), 43 L. J. C. P. 281 ;
Migotti V. Colville (1878), 48 L. J. M. C. 48 ; TomlinaoH v.
Bullock, 4 Q. B. D. 230; Clarke v. Bradlaugh, 8 Q. B. D. 63.
See further, p. 739, int.

(c) 2 Lev. 141, 176; and per Cur., ij. v. Eduards, sup.

(d) Campbell v. Strangewayi, 3 C. P. D. 107.

(«) A.-G. v. Capell, 2 Show. 636 ; R. v. Oilet, 8 Price, 293 ;
Gilei V. Oroter, 36 R. B. 27 ; R. v. Edwardt (1853), 23 L. J.
Ex. 42.

COMPUTATION- OF TIME.

611

in which case the Sunday is excluded (a). It bag
been held, however, that where an Act making no
mention of Sunday required that a reoogniaance
should be entered into in two days aftar notice
of appeal, and the notice was given on a Friday,
recognisances on the following Monday were too
late ; though Sunday was the last day, and they
could not be entered into then (A). " Daily "
includes Sundays (c). Of course, when an Act
expressly excludes Sunday, the days given for
doing an act are working days only {d).

A continuing act, such as trespass or imprison-
ment, dates, in the computation of the time
allowed for bringing an action in respect of
it, from the day of its termination («). So, a

(o) R. S. C, Ord. LXIV., r. 2.

(6) Simpkiu, Exp. (1859), 29 L. J. M. C. 23 ; Peaeodc v. J}.,
27 L. J. C. P. 224.

(c) Lcmdon 0. C. v. S. Metropolitan Ga» Co., 73 L. J. Ch. 136.

{d) Peaie v. Norv-id, L. R. 4 C. P. 235 ; Hieka, Ixp., L. R
20 Eq. 143.

(«) Xttttey V. Johtuott, 12 East, 67 ; Hardg v. Byfe, o B. & C.
603 ; Oollitts V. Bote, 8 L. J. Ex. 273 ; Pfaae v. Chat/tor, 32
L. J. M. C. 121 ; Whilehome v. Fellowes, 30 L. J. C. P. 30r>. As
to Subsidence, see Darleij Maiu Colliern Co. v. Mitchell, 11 App.
Cas. 127 ; Gmmbie v. Walhend Loc. Bd., [1891] 1 Q. B. 503. See,
however, Wallace v. liltti-lmell, 25 L. J. Ch. 644 ; Eggington v.
Lichfield, 24 L. J. Q. B. 360. As to Continuing Nuisance,
see oases in Bathiahill v. Reed, 25 L. J. C. P. 290, and
Whitekome v. Fellowes, sup. As to Encroachment, Cagijiiw v.

m

-fir-

612

IXTEBPRKTATION OF RTATUTE8.

bankrupt remaining abroad with intent to defeat
his creditors commits a fresb act of bankmptoy
every day (a).

Distances were formerly measured by the nearest
and most usual road or way (A); and this is
undoubtedly the popular manner of measuring
them (c). But if the nearest practicable mode of
access were adopted, should it be a carriage-way,
or a bridle-path, or a footpath ? If the way were
by a tidal riv^r, the distance might vary every
hour of the day (</). Unless a contrary intention
appears, distances will, " for the purposes of any
Act passed after" Ist January, 1890, be iieasnred
in a straight line on a horizontal plane («) ; indeed,
without enactment, that would seem a universal
rule for all Acts, without distinction (/).

In the Interpretation Act, 1889, and every sub-

BenneU, 2 C. P. D. 668 ; BumbaU v. Sclmidt, 8 Q. B. D. 60S ;
WeUh V. Wetl Havi (Mayor), [1900] 1 Q. B. 324.

(a) Bumy, Exp., 26 L. J. Bank. 83.

(i>) 1 Hawk. 54. Comp. 23 L. J. 0. P. 144 n.

(c) Per Coleriage J., ioie v. Butler, 5 E. & B. 97.

(d) Per LotJ Campbell, Lake v. Butler, sup. See Sloiet v.
aritsell, 14 C. B. 678 ; Jewell v. Stead, 25 L. J. Q. B. 294 ;
li. V. Saffron Wahlen, 15 L. J. M. C. 115 ; Duignan v. Wallter,
28 L. J. Ch. 867 ; Moujtet v. Cole, L. K. 8 Ex. 32; Cotdbert v.
Troke, 1 Q. B. D. 1.

(e) 52 & 53Vict. c. 63, s. 34.

(/) Lake V. Sutler, 5 E. & B. 97 ; Jeaell v. Stead, 25
L. J. Q. B. 294. As to the general measurement ol distance,
sec Mmifiet v. Cole, 42 L. J. Ex. 8.

DI8TANGE8— PABTICULAB KX l>Rf»moN8,

613

lequent Act, the expression " person," unless the
contrary intention appears, includes any body of
persons corporate or uninoorporate (<«), and the
same expression includes any body corporate in
the construction of any previous enactment relat-
ing to an offence punishable on indictment or
summary conviction (b).

In every Act expressions referring to writing,
unless the contrary intention appears, are to be
construed as including references to printing,
lithography, photography, and other modes of
representing or reproducing words in a visible
form (c).

In every Act subsequent to 1866, unless the
contrary intention appears, the word " parish "
means, as regards England and Wales, a place for
which a separate poor rate is or can be made, or a
separate overseer appointed {d).

§

An offence made punishable, in the language of
our old statutes, by "judgment of life or member,"
is thereby made a felony (c) ; but when the judg-
ment is " forfeiture of body and goods," or to be

(o) 52 & 53 Viot. 0. 63, s. 19. And see Mumell Brot. v. L. A
N. W. By. (1918), 87 L. J. K. B. 82.
(b) 52 & 53 Viot. 0. 63, s. 2 (1).
(e) li s. 20.
(d) Id. s. 5.
(«) 1 Hawk. 303.

iiU

614

INTKKPRKTATION or HTATVTKS.

at the King's will for body, lands, and goodii,
the offence is a misdemeanonr only (a). When
a " second offence " is the subject of distinct
punishment, it is an offence committed afi er con-
viction of a first (6). When a case is made triable,
or a penalty recoverable in " a Court of Becord,"
the Supreme Court of Judicature alone, but not
the Quarter Sessions, is intended (c). The punish-
ment of " fine and ransom " is a single pecuniary
penalty (d), and when to be imposed " at the
King's pleasure," this is to be done in his Courts
and by his justices (e). When imprisonment is
provided, immediate imprisonment is generally
understood (/), and " forfeiture " means forfeiture
to the Crown, except when it is imposed for
wrongful detention or dispoBsessiou ; in which
OMes the forfeiture goes to the benefit of the party
wronged (g).

(a) Oo. Litt. 391 ; 3 Inst. 145.

(6) 3 Inst. 468, which was relied on and applied io R. v. Soulk
Shieldt Lianuing Jm. (1911), 80 L. J. K. B. 809.
(e) 6 Bep. 19b, 2 Hale, 29 ; Jenk. Cent. 328.

(d) 1 Inst. 137a.

(e) 1 Hale, 375.

(/) 8 Rep. 119b ; comp. 11 & 12 Viot. o. 43, s. 25.
(g) 1 iDBt. lS9a, 11 Bep. 60b.

CHAPTER XII.

MCTIOK 1. — IMPLIED ENACTMENTS — NKCEBHABV
IMCIDBNTM AND COXgEQUENCEH.

Pabsino from the interpretation of the language
of statutes, it remains to consider what iutontious
are to bo attributed to the Legislature, where it
has expressed none, on questions necessarily arising
out of its enactments.

Although, as already stated (p. 148), the Legis-
lature is presumed to intend no alterpticn ia the
law beyond the immediate and specific purposes
of the Act, these are considered as including nil
the incidents or consequences strictly resulting
from the enactment. Thus, when the Legisla-
ture imposes upon the promoters of a railway or
other undertaking an obligation to construct and
maintain works, it necessarily follows that they
must bear the cost of construction and mainten-
ance, unless there be an express or plainly implied
provision to the contrary («). An Act (A) which

(n) Weit Irulia IiiifrmemenI Co. v. A 0. of Jamaica, [1094]
A. C. 243.

('-) 9 Geo. I. c. 22 (The Black Act), repealed liy 7 & S
Oeo. IV. c. 27, 8. 1.

.-Hi^

i

ifei^

b|f,

.■;f|j .

616

INTERPRETATION OF BTATHTES.

declared an offence felony would impliedly give it
all the incidents of felony ; and it would make it
an offence to be an accessory before or after it (a).
Where an Act directs that a new offence which it
creates shall be tried by an inferior Court accord-
ing to the jourse of the common law, the inferior
Court tries it as a Common Law Court, subject
to all the incidents of common law proceedings,
and subject therefore to removal by writs of
error, habeas corpus, and certiorari (6). Where
the widow of a copyholder became entitled to
dower by custom, it was held that she became
entitled to all the incidents of dower, such as,
among others, to damages, under the Statute of
Merton, when deforced of her dower (c), and to
the same right of thirds in her husband's copy-
holds as, at common law, she had in his freeholds,
so that her thirds in his copyholds would be
unaffected by any alienation by him (d). Where
trustees were appointed by statute to perform
duties which would, of necessity, continue with-
out limit of time, it was held that from the nature

(o) 1 Hale, 632, 704 ; Coalheavert' Gate (1768), 1 Leach, 66.
See also B. v. JJeyce (1767), 4 Burr., at p. 2075.

(i) Per Lord Mansfield, Hartley v. Hooker (17771, 2 CowD
524. "'

(c) 20 Hen. III. ; Shaw v. Thompton, 4 Bep. 30b.

(d) Doe d. Bidden v. GmnneU, 10 L. J. Q. B. 212 ; Foudt i:
V. Joriet, 24 L. J. Ch. 123.

IMPLIED EKA0TMKNTS-L1.0ICAL CONSEQUENCES. (il7

of the powers given t . them, the,- were impliedly
made a corporation (<<}. When ,■ local authority
had statutory powers .o ".ocover" expenses, it
was thereby also impliedly empowered not only to
sue for them, but to sue in its collective designa-
tion, although not incorporated (4). The right
of shareholders to "inspect" and "peruse" a
register of debenture stock, impliedly carries with
it the right to take copies. The enactment might
otherwise confer a mere illusory right (c). The
Bankruptcy Acts, in requiring a bankrupt to
answer self-criminating questions relative to his
trade and affairs, made his answers subject to the
general rules of the law of evidence, and conse-

(a) Se»,port Trurtee,. Exp., 16 Sim. 346; Comp. William, v
Lord, of Admiralty, 11 C. B. 420 , Biwrsv. Adam, 3 Ex. D. 361.
See also Tone CoMervatoTB v. A,h, 10 B. & 0. 349, and Jeffrey, v.
Ourr, 36 B. B. 769, where incorporation was impUed from the
o^^Jnm8tanoe that there would otherwise be no means of
enforcing the rights given by the statute. Comp. Salford
{Mayor) v. Lancaehire C. C. (1890), 25 Q. B. D 384- 59
L. J. Q. B. 676.
(6) Jiri7?» V. Scott, L. E. 8 Q. B. 496.

(c) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 118, 8. 28 ; Mutter v. Eaetem & Midland,
%., 57 L. J. Ch. 615 ; JVe/«or. v. Anglo- American Land Co., 66
L. J. Ch. 112 ; PerUn, v. London d; N. W. By., 1 By. .t Can.
Traffic Caa. 327 ; Onnerod v. St. George', Iron Work,, [1908]
1 Ch. 605, C. A. ; but this impUed right to talte copies is
negatived by an express provision as to mode of obtaining
copies, Salaghdl Gold Co., Be, 70 L. J. K. B. 866. See also
B. 27 (18) Ord. LXV., E. S. C, 1883.

618

INTEBPKETATION OF BTATUTES.

quently admissible in evidence against him, even
in criminal proceedings. To hold otherwise would
have been, in effect, to suppose that the Legisla-
ture, in expressly changing the law which had
hitherto protected him from answering, intended
also to make the further change, by mere implica-
tion, of suspending, pro tanto, the ordinary rule
as regards the admissibility of self-prejudicing
statements (a).

The Judgments Extension Act, 1868 (31 & 32
Vict. c. 45), which provided for the execution, in
Scotland and Ireland, of judgments recovered in
England, was considered as having impliedly
abolished the rule of procedure which required
that a plaintiff residing out of the jurisdiction
should give security for costs ; th? logical reason
for the rule (which was, that if the verdict were
against the plaintiff, le would not be within the
reach of the process of the Court for costs) having
been swept away by the enactment (h).

So, the owner or master of a ship is tacitly
relieved from liability for the injuries done by the
ship through the acts or neglect of a pilot, where

(a) S. V. Scoll (1856), 25 L. J. M. C. 128; B. v. WiMop
(1872), 42 L. J. M. C. 9; B. v. Erdlteim (1896), 65 L. J. M. C.
176 ; Sanlcey, Be, 59 L. J. K. B. 238.

(6) Baebum v. Andrea (1874), 43 L. J. Q. B. 73. Principle
not appUed Bowe Muehine Co., I,, re (1889), 41 Ch. D. IIH (but
order subsequently discharged).

IXOIDBNTS AND CONSBIJUBNCEH. tjl9

tlie employment of the latter is couipulsoiy by
law; the pilot performing a duty imposed by
statute, and being neither appointed by nor under
the control of the owner or master (o).

An Act which simply creates a corporation,
impliedly gives it the general legal attributes of
one, among which is an ordinary power to make
contracts (ft); but, speaking generally, its powers
are only those which are expressly conferred, or
which, by necessary implication, are included in
the express powers ; whilst under the Companies
Acts, 1862 and 1807, replaced by Companies (Con-
solidation) Act, 1908, the powers of a Company
are further restricted by its Memorandum of Asso-
ciation (c). A contract entered into by a Company
beyond its competency could not be ratified even
by the unanimous assent of the shareholders,

(o) CarrtUhen v. Sydebotham, 16 B. B. 392 ; The Maria, 1 Bob.
W. 96; Tlie Agricola, 2 Bob. W. 10; Luce;/ v. Ingram, 9 L. J.
Ex. 196; The Clan Oordm, 7 P. D. 190; Comp. The China,
7 Wallace, 67. As to General Law of Pilotage, see 2 i 3
Geo. V. 0. 31.

(6) See AsKbury dc. Co. v. Riche, 44 L. J. Ex. 185 ; Broughlon
V. Manchester Watenmrh, 22 E. B. 278 ; Shean v. Jacob, L. E.
1 C. P. 513, and the oases collected in S. of Ireland Colliery v.
Waddle, L. B. 3 C. P. 463 ; 4 Id. C17.

(c) Id. See also Lmulon C. C. v. A.-0. (1902), 71 L. J. Ch.
268; East Anglian Sg. Co. v. Eastern Counties Rij. Co., 21
L. J. C. P. 23 ; South Yorkshire By. Co. v. Great N. By. Co., 22
L. J. Ex. 305 ; A.-G. t. G. E. By., 48 L. J. Ch. 428 ; A.-G. v.
Mersey liy., 7B L. J. Ch. 568.

!!:

620

IJTfBBl'BETATION OF STATUTES.

for this would be an attempt to do what the Ac
of Parliament prohibits (a).

"The difference between a Statutory Corpora

tion and a Corporation incorporated by Roya

Charter is well settled. The former can do sucl

acts only as are authorised, dii-ectly or indirectly

by the statute creating it; the latter, speaking

generally, can do everything that an ordinarj

individual can do. If, however, the Corporation

by Charter be a Municipal Corporation, then they

are subject to the restrictions imposed by the

Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, and wiU be

restrained from applying their borough fund to

purposes not authorised by that Act (b).

Where an Act provided that the costs and
expenses incidental to passing it, should be paid
by the Metropolitan Board, but did not state to
whom they should be paid, it was held that
they were payable to the promoters only, and

(a) Per Lord Cairns, A»hhury die Co. v. SicM, L. B. 7 H L
672; 44 L. J. Ex. 197. " '

(b) A.-6. V. Neteeattle-Ufon-Tj/ru! and N. E. Ky 58 L J Q B
558 560; 23 Q. B. D. 492. 497; A.-O. v. T!,ne,uoulk Corp.
(1898). 67 L. J. Q. B. 489; A.-G. v. L. C C. (1901). 70 L. J Ch
367. C. A. Per Far^vell J., A..O. v. Manclmter, 75 L. J. Ch
334; see also per Swinfen Eady J.. jB,i7i.i S. Afrka Co. v
De Beer, Mines, 59 L. J. Ch. 345. affirmed 80 L. J Ch 65-
reversed in H. L. (without afleoting the above dictum). W n'
(1911), 245. '

moiDENTS AND CONSEQUENCES. .igi

A private Act which, after annexing a reetorv
to the deaaery of Windsor, recited that the dean's
residence at the latter place would oblige his
frequent absence from the rectory, and required
him to appoint a curate to reside there was
deemed to give him, by implication, an exemption
from residence (4). ^

But this extention of an enactment is confined
to Its stnctly necessary incidents or logical con-
sequences. When, for instance, a statute requires
the performance of a service, it implies no pro-
vision that the person performing it shall be re-
munerated (c). An Act which empowered justices
to discharge an apprentice from his apprenticeship
It Ill-treated by his master, would not inferentiallv
empower them to order a return of the premium ■
for however just it might be that such a return
should be made, and convenient that it should be
ordered by the tribunal which cancelled the inden-
ture, such a power was not the logical or necessary

(o) Wi/alt V. Jtfffrop. M. of W„rh (1662), 31 Ij. J. C P 217
Distinguished in Haddon's (Ld.) Estate Act, W. N. (1889),'

(It) Wright V. Legge, 6 Taunt. 48.

(c) Per Lord Abinger, Jones v. Carmarllten (1841) 8 M & W
605 ; B. V. mn. 22 L. J. Q. B. 324 ; if. v, Allda,j, 26 L. J. Q. B.
292. See also Alretforil v. ScotI, 7 Q, B. D. 210.

.1 ^ t

823 fVTEBPBETATION Of BTATUTEB.

incident or result of that which was expressly
conferred (<j). Money received by the treasurer of
a trading club on account of the club is none the
less the property of the members as beneficial
owners, because the club was formed in contra-
vention of s. 4, Companies Act, 1862, and has
consequent]}' no legal existence as a company,
association, or co-partnership (6). Where a gas
company is required by statute to supply gas to
the public lamps in a town from sunset to sunrise
at a fixed annual sum per lamp, the burners to
consume not less than a certain amount of gas per
hour, there is no implied provision that on tailure
of the supply on certain days it is only to be
entitled to a smaller sum («). The Tithe Act, 1836,
which auth"''ised a tenant who paid the tithe
rent-charge to deduct the amount from the rent
next due, gave a tenant no implied right to sue the
landlord for the payment, the landlord not being
liable to pay the tithe (d). And s. 13, Stannaries
Act, 1869 («), which gives power to a cost-book

(o) R. V. YanileheT, 1 Stra. 69 ; East v. Pell, 8 L. J. M. C. 33.
(h) 2S & 36 Vict. o. 89, repealed s. 1, Companies (Con-
solidatioD) Act, 1908 ; B. v. Tanlard, [1894] 1 Q. B. 548.

(c) Richmond Gas Co. v. Bichmond Corp., [1893] 1 Q. B. 56.

(d) 6 & 7 Will. IV. o. 71, s. 80; Dawen v. rhomat, [1892]
1 Q. B. 414, As to land tax, see Andrew v. Handcock (1819),
21 E. B. 569 ; 1 Brod. & Bing. 37. As to when payable by
tenant. Parish v. Sleeimx (1860), 29 L. J. Ch. 96; Manning v.
Limn (1846), 2 Car. & K. 13. («) 32 & 33 Vict. o. 19.

IMPLIED POWEBS AND DUTIES.

•i23

mining company to bring an action against a share-
holder for unpaid calls, in the name of their purser
does not consequently authorise the purser to
present a bankruptcy petition in his own name on
behalf of the company against a shareholder in
respect of a judgment recovered by him in such
action (a). A County Council incorporated under
the Local Government Act, 1888, is a purely
statutory body, and has not the powers of a munici-
pal or common law corporation, and therefore the
possession of statutory powers to purchase and
work tramways does not empower it to work
omnibuses in connection with the tramways (h).

Where a statute requires a thing to be done,
but does not impose a specific fine for not doing it,
it is not for the Court inferentially to draw the
conclusion that a penalty is incurred (c).

1 I

S> '

SECTION II. — IMPLIED POWERS AND OBLIGATIONS.

Where an Act confers a jurisdiction, it impliedly
grants, also, the power of doing all such acts, or
employing such means, as are essentially neces-
sary to its execution. Cui jwisdictio data est, ea

(o) Nance, Be, [1893] 1 Q. B. 590. See Suthrie v. Fuk, 3
B. & C. 178 ; Sunderland Bd. v. Franhland, L. R. 8 Q. B. 18.

(6) 51 & 52 Viot. 0. 41 ; London C. C. v. A.-G. (1902), 71
L. J. Ch. 268.

(<•) Hammond v. Piilt/ord, [1895] 1 Q. B. 2^3.

i*'''.\

624

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

i

">

gitoque conceitm esie videntur, nine quUtus jurisdlctio
explicar! rum potuit{a). Thus, an Act which
empowers justices to require persons to take an
oath as special constables, or give them jurisdic-
tion to inquire into an offence, impliedly empowers
them to apprehend the persons who unlawfully
fail to attend before them for those purposes ;
otherwise the jurisdiction could not be effectually
exercised (i). So, where an inferior Court is
empowered to grant an injunction, the power of
punishing disobedience to it by commitment is
impliedly conveyed by the enactment; for the
power would be useless if it could not be en-
forced (c). And it is laid down that where a
statute empowers a justice to bind a person over,
or to cause him to do something, and the person,
in his presence, refuses, the justice has impliedly
authority to commit him to jail till he complies (<l).
An Act wliich authorises the making of by-laws,
impliedly authorises the annexation of a reasonable

(o) Dig. 2, 1, 2.

(6) Oath before Jmlice; 13 Eep. 131 ; 2 Hawk. c. 13, s. 15 ;
Bane v. Methien, 27 B. E. 546. Comp. B. v. Tmyford, 5
A. k E. 430. Sue also Eane v. Planner, 1 Saund. 10 ; Burlon v.
Benion, 11 L. J. Ex. 348. See also Statutes relating to Special
Constables, 1 & 2 WUl. IV. o. 41 ; 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50; 4 & 5
Geo. V. 0. 61 ; and see Cammmtoner of Melroji. PoUee v.
Hancock, [1916] 1 K. B. 190.

(c) Morlin, Exp. (1879), 4 Q. B. D. 212, 491.

((I) 2 Hawk. c. 16, s. 2.

IMPLIED P0WEB8 ASD DDTIK8.

62S

peoumary penalty for thek infringement, recover-
able (in the absence ol other provision) by action
or distress (a).

The enactment that at the election of poor
law guardians the votes should be taken and
returned as the Commissioners should direct
mipUedly authorised the appointment of a return-
ing officer (6). An Act which, after empowering
the parishioners to elect an assistant overseer
provided that this power should cease where an
assistant overseer had been appointed by the Poor
Law Commissioners (who had previously no power
to make such an appointment), and while their
order of appointment remained in force, would
seem to have given the Commissioners that power
by impUcation (c). Where a judgment was re-
covered in a County Couit against its bailiff, a
power to appoint a special bailiff to levy execution
in that case was held to be necessarily incident to
the Court {d).
So it was held that when a duty was imposed

(a) S Bap. 63a; 2 Kyd. Corp. 156 ; Ball v. Nixon, L. B 10
Q. B. 152; B. V. Smk<n,, 3 Q. B. D. 379. See 52 & S3 Viot o
63,8.32. ■ ■

(i) 4 4 5 WUl. IV. o. 70, s. 40 (repealed in part ; see 7 & 8
Viot. 0. 101); B. V. Oldhatii, 16 L. J. M. C. 110.

(c) B. V. Oreene, 21 L. J. M. 0. 137. See CilleH v. Trimble
8up. p. 242.

(d) BeUttmn v. ifojfc (1875), L. B. 10 Ex. 220.

1-S. 40

626

INTKBPBRTATION OV STATUTES.

1. 1

'''11

on a oonnty, and costs neoessarily arose in quei
tioning the propriety of an act done to enforo
that dnty — as, for instance, in disputing th
liability of a fine imposed on the county fo
neglect to repair the county jail — the justicee
who had the superintendeuoe of the county purse
had impliedly a right to defray such costs on
of it (a).

In the sai'ic way, when powers, privileges, o
property are granted by statute, everything indie
pensable to their exercise or enjoyment is im
pliedly granted also, as it would be in a grau
between private persons. Thus, as by a privat
grant or reservation of trees, the power of entei
ing on the land where they stand, and of cuttiuj
them down and canying them away, is implied];
given or reserved ; and by the grant of mines, th
power to dig them (A) ; so, under a Farliamentar
authority to buUd a bridge on a stranger's land
the grantee tacitly acquires the right of erecting

(a) B. V. Euex, i T. B. 591, per Lord Kenyon ; R. v. Whit
14 Q. B. D. 358. Sea A.-O. v. Brecon, 10 Ch. D. 204 ; Lett
Council V. Leith Harbour Commimowra, [1899] A. G. 608 ; Brook
Jmkim Jt Co. v. Torquay Corp., [1902] 1 K. B. 601 ; (1901), 7
L. J. K. B. 109. See also i^n to the implied right of a tradin
company to borrow, General Auction Co. v. Smith, 60 L. J. 0\
723 ; per Buckley J., Mamel v. Cobhani, 74 L. J. Ch. 327
Hindi V. Buenos Ayres Tratimayt Co., 76 L. J. Ch. 17.

{b) Shep. Touebst. 89; Boll. Ah. Incidents, A.

UIPUED P0WEB8 AND DDTIK8. 627

ou the land, the temporary soaffoldiu^ which iti
essential to the execution of the work («). Where
an express statutory right is given to make and
maintain something requiring support, tlie statute,
m the absence of a controlling context, must be
taken to mean that the right of support shall
accompany the right to make and maintain. If
the Act does not provide any means of obtaining
compensation for the loss occasioned to the land-
owner by his having to leave support, this is an
argument against the Legislature having intended
to give such right ; but if it contains provisions
under which compensation can be obtained, it
needs a strong context to show that the right of
support is not given (4).
So, if the Legislature authorises the construction

(a) Clarmee Bj). Co. v. 0. N. of England %. Co., 12 L. ,1.
Q. B. 145.

(6) L. d N. W. Bn. Co. V. Evan,, 62 L. J. Ch. 1, approved in
Clippau Oil Co. v. Edinburgh Water Trmlee,, 73 L. J. P. C. 32.
Camp. Buabon Co. v. G. W. III/., [1893^ 1 Ch. 427 ; Bell v. Karl
0/ Dudley, 64 L. J. Ch. 291. As to the conatiuction of Acts, ex.
gr. laolosure Acts, involving, or relating to, a severance ot the
Surface from the Subjacent Minerals, see j«r Lord Blackburn
Dam, V. Trehame, 50 L. J. Q. B. 007, cited by Lord Selborne
L.C!., LoK V. Bdl, 63 L. J. Q. B. 258; Duon v. While, 8 App.
Cas. 833 ; Bank of Scotland v. Stewart, 28 Sc. L. B. 735 ; New
Sharlitan Collieriee v. WeatmorlamI, 73 L. J. Ch. 311 a. ; Butler-
knoalc Colliern Co. v. Bi,ho,i AnekUmdCo-oucraliveSuvu.',lb h i
Ch. 541.

INTERFBKTATION Or 8TATUTI!8.

of a work or the use of ,a particular thing for
a partionlar purpose, the permissiou oarries with
it impliedly nn exemption from responBibility for
any damage arising from the use, without negli-
gence (i.e., the neglect of some care which one is
bound by law to exercise towards somebody (a)) ;
as, for instance, when haystacks are fired by
locomotive engines running on railways {b). Bat
to the general rule, that statutory authority
absolves from responsibility where no negligence
is shown, see the Hallway Fires Act, 1005
(5 Edw. VII. oil). Where, however, trustees and
official persons are authorised to execute a work,
such as to raise a road, to lower a hill, or to
make a drain, they are impliedly authorised, if
necessary for the due execution of their task, to

(a) Per Bovren L.J., Tkomat v. Quartermaine (1887), 18
Q. B. D., at p. 691. This case oonsidend and expUined in
Ainot V. Daff) (1890), 6 T. L. R 339, 0. A.

(b) B. V. Peau, 38 B. R 307 ; Fauijiiaii v. Taff 7aU By. Co.,
29 L. J. Ex. 247 (questioned by BramwaU L.J. in Poaell v.
FaU, 6 Q. B. D. 601) ; Freenuinlle v. London (t N. W. By. Co.,
31 L. J. C. F. 12 : Dli/th V. Birminyham Walerworks Co., 25 L.J.
Ex. 213 ; Dunn v. Birmingham Canal Co., L. B. 8 Q. B. 42 ;
flamiiiertmilh By. Co. v. Brand, L. B. 4 H. L. 171 ; A.-G. v,
Melrop. By. Co., [1894] 1 Q. B. 384; Cracinell v. Thetforil,
L. E. 4 C. P. 629; Oeddit v. Bann Co., 3 App. Cas. 454, pw
Lord Blaokbuin ; National Telephone Co. v. Baker, [1893] 2 Ch
186 ; Stretton't Derby Breicery Co. v. Derby {Mayor), [1894] 1 Cli
431 ; Canadian Pac. By. Co. v. Hoy, [1902] A. C. 220.

IMPI.IF.U POWERS ANK Dl TIEd.

R20

prejudice the rights, or injure the property of third
persons without liability for action provided they
do no more than the statute under which they
are acting authorises und requires them to do (a).
But in like cironmstances a private individual or
corporation would be liable whether he were guilty
of negligence or not (A). Where CommisHioners
have to construct works, and may levy rates to
pay for their construction, there is an implication,
unless it be clearly negatived by something in the
Act to the contrary, that it is within tlieir power
to levy a rate to provide for a liability incurred
through the work being done negligently by their
servants (f). And a statute which authorises n
Local Authority to employ a proper number of
persons to act as firemen, impliedly authorises
such firemen to preserve order during a fire,
and to exclude such persons from the burning
premises as it may be necessary to exclude, so as
to prevent the inconvenience which would arise

(o) Per Williams J., Wh!Uhott$e v. Fellowa (1861), 10
C. B. N. S., at p. 780 ; 30 L. J. 0. P. 305.

(i) Taff Vale By. v. Amahjamalal Soelely of Baihraij Senanit,
[1901] A. 0. 426; Farwell J., at p. 432.

{e) aaltaworlhj v. 5c% Commimiomrt, [1892] 1 Q. B. 348;
Mertey DocH v. aibbi (1866), L. E. 1 H. L. 93 ; Southamptmi
nriilge Co. v. Southampton Local Board, 28 L. J. Q. B. 41 ; B.
V. WilHamt (1884), 9 App. Cas. 418 ; 53 L. ,1. P. C. 04 ; B. v.
Selby Daw Drainage Commimonera (1892), Gl L. ,1. Q. B. 372.

()3U

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

from overcrowding or interference with thei
work (a).

But when an Act confers such powers, it als(
impliedly requires that they shall be exercisec
only for the purposes for which they were given
and subject to the conditions which, it prescribes
and also with due skill and diligence, and in a waj
to prevent a needless mischief or injury (ft). A
power, for instance, to establish asylums for the
sick would not authorise the establishment of a
small-pox hospital in such a place or circumstances
as to be a common nuisance (c).

Again, a grant of fish in a pond does not carry
with it an authority to dig a trench to let the

(a) Carter v. Thomaa, [1893] 1 Q. B. 673.

{h) Jonet V. Bird, 34 E. B. 579; Oroceri^ Co. v. J>o>ine, 43
K. H. 591 ; Clothier v. Webtler, 31 L. .1. C. P. 316; TriJer v.
Chadmck, 43 B. E. 659 ; Laturence v. G. N. Sy. Co., 20 L. J. Q. B.
293 ; Collifu v. MiMte Level Commra., L. B. 4 C. P. 279 ; Geddii
V. Bonn Co. (1878), 3 App. Gas. 430; Canadian Pac. By. Co v
no,j (1901), 71 L. J. P. C. 51. But see Sonthmrl Water Co', y.
Wandmorth Board, [1898] 2 Ch. 603; and Ea,t Freuumtle
Corp. V. Annois (1901), 71 L. J. P. C. 39.

ft) 30 Viot. c. 6, 8. 5 (extended 39 & 40 Vict. o. 61, sB. 40, 41) ;
Metrop. Atylnms District v. IliU (1881), 50 L. J. Q. B. 353 \
Canadian Pac. By. Co. v. Porte, 68 L. J. P. C. 89, which last
two oases were cited and applied by Joyce J. in Metmp. Wattr
Board V. Solomon, 77 L. J. Ch. 520. See also Bapier v. London
Tramway, Co., [1893] 2 Ch. 588; Yomon v. St. James', Vestry
16 Ch. D. 449. Comp. L. B. d S. C. By. v. Trmnan. 11 App.
Cas. 45 and Jorieton v. Sutton dr. Oat Co.. [18991 2 Ch. 217.

IMPMRD POWEKg AXD DUTrES.

631

water out to take the fish, since thay can be taken
by nets or other devioes, without doing such
damage (a); and, in likt manner, a statute does
not give by implication any powers not absolutely
essential to the privilege or property granted. An
authority to construct a sewer on the land of
another, for instance, would not carry with it the
right to lateral support from the land, if it was
possible to construct an adequate sewer indepen-
dent of such support (6). An Act of Parliament
does not, by authorising persons to repair and
cleanse a navigable river, impliedly authorise them
to dig, in the bed of the river (the soil of which is
vested in the owner of a several fishery) a canal
or passage to a new wharf, for the convenience of
their barges, to the prejudice of the fishery (c).
Authority given to make a railway for the passage
of waggons, engines and other carriages, does not
impliedly give power to use locomotives on it ; as
other means of traction may be employed. There-
fore, if injury arises from the use of a locomotive,
under such circumstances, the general rule of law
implies, that a person who uses a dangerous thing
is liable to an action for any injury which he does

(•) Pinoh'a Disc, on Law, 63; Oeartu v. linker, L B 10
Ch. 355.

(4) Metrop. Board v. Melrop. By. Co., 38 L. J. C. P. 172 ;
Boderiek v. Atlon Local Board, 5 Ch. D. 328.

(c) Partieriehe v. Jffur.wm, 9 Chit 668.

iP!

682

nrrKBPBETATION OP STATUTK8.

by it (a). Ordinary railway, gas, and mining oom-
panies, on this principle, have no implied power
to draw, accept, or indorse bills or notes ; for this
is not essential to their business (6). So, it has
been held that a Colonial legislative body has,
impliedly granted to it by the Act or charter
which constitutes it, the power of removing and
keeping excluded from the chamber where it carries
on its deliberations, all persons who interrupt its
proceedings ; lot such a power is absolutely indis-
pensable for the proper exercise of its functions.
But a power of punishing such offenders for their
contempt of its authority is not necessary for this
purpose, and so is not granted by implication (c).

If land is vested by Act of Parliament in persons
for public purposes, a power of conveying away
any part of it would not be impliedly granted (rf) :

(a) J<me» v. Festimog By. Go. (1868), L. B. 3 Q. B. 7SS ;
Ouardiam Artiiagh Union v. Bell, [1900] 2 Ir. B. 371 (affirmed
on appeal) ; B. v. Bradford Navigation, 34 L. J. Q. B. 191 ;
Powett V. Fatt, 5 Q. B. D. 597 ; Go* Light i Cole Co. v. St. Mar^
AhboU-f, 15 Q. B. D. 1. See Byland» v. FleUher, L. E. 3 H. L
330.

(ft) Bateman v. Mid-Walet By. Co., L. B. 1 C. P. 499, and the
oases ooUected there.

(«) Keilley v. Canon, 4 Moo. P. C. 63 ; Fenlon v. Hampton, 11
Id. 347 ; Bromi, Be, 33 L. J. Q. B. 193 ; Boyle v. Falemer, h. E.
1 P. C. 328; Barton v Taylor (1886) 55 L. J. P. C. 1 ; 11
App. Cas., at p. 203. See SpiUmry v. MicHelhwaile, 9 ^. B.
717 ; and comp. Fielding v. Tlumae (1896), 65 L. J. P. C. 103.

(d) Wadmore v. Dear (1871), h. B. 7 C. P. 213; Tepper v.

lUFUED F0WEB8 AND DUTIES.

633

" a parliamentary franchise of this kind is not a
bit of property which the owner can dispose of
just as he might a stick or a table or an acre of
land ; it is nothing of the kind " (a). So, where
a statute prohibited bathing on the shore except
from bathing machines, which the local authori-
ties were empowered to license, that power did
not entitle a licensed person to place a bathing
machine on the shore without the consent of the
owner of the shore (h).

The concession of privileges or powers often
carries with it implied obligations. For instance,
an Act which gives a power to dig up the soil of
streets for a particular purpose, such as making
a drain, impliedly casts on those thus empowered
the duty of filling up the ground again, and of
restoring the street to its original condition (c).

NichoU (1864), 34 L. J. 0. P. 61 ; MuUimr v. Micaand Bt/. Co.
(1879), 11 Oh. D. 611 ; Ayr Harbour Tnuteei v. Omald (1883),
8 App. Oas. 623 ; 0. W. Sy. v. Solilmll Sural Council (1902), 86
L. J. 852, C. A. ; Stratford Union Council v. ManehcBter &c. By.
(1903), 1 L. G. R 683.

(o) Per Cozens-Hardy M.E., Ecelea Corp. v. S< :,'; laneaghire
Tramimys Co., 79 L. J. Ch. 765, in support of which dictum the
leanied judge cites from the judgment of Lord Hersohell L.O.
in Edinburgh Street Tramwaya Co. v. Edinburgh, 63 L. J. Q. B. 771 .

(fc) llaee v. Phileox, 33 L. J. 0. P. 124.

{c) Gray v. PuUen (1864), 34 L. J. Q. B. 265; Bower v. Peale
(1876), 45 L. J. Q. B. 446 ; Grovet v. Wimbonc {Ltl.) (1898), 67
L. J. Q. B. 862.

684

INTBBPRETATIOS OF STATUTES.

If it imposed a liability on one person to keep in
repair a work in the possession of another, it
would be understood as impliedly imposing on
the latter the obligation of giving notice of the
needed repair to the party liable (a).

A public body, authorised to make a bridge or
tow-path and to take tolls for its use, is impliedly
bound to keep it in proper repair, as long as it
takes the tolls and invites the public to use the
work ; or at least, to give those whom they invite
to use it, due warning of the defect which makes
it unfit for use (b).

If statutory authority is given to persons,
primarily for their own benefit and profit rather
than for any advantage which the public may
incidentally derive, such as to cut through a high-
way and throw a bridge over the cutting, or to
substitute a new road for the old one ; the burden
of maintaining the new work in repair would be
impliedly cast on them, and not on the county
or parish (<■). Another duty which would also be

(a) Lmdon & S. W. By. On. v. Floaer, 1 C. P. D. 77 ; MaUn v.
WatkimOH, L. E. 6 Ex. 25. See ScuUock v. Hnnttm, 1 C. P. D.
106 ; Brown v. 0. E. By. Co., 2 Q. B. U. 40C.

(6) Winch T. Thamm Coruenalors, L. R. 9 0. P. .378 ; Nieholl
V. AOen, 31 L. J. Q. B. 283 ; ForUu v. Lee Com. Board, 4 Ex.
D. 116. Comp. Ching v. Surrey 0. C, 78 L. J. K. B. 927, affd. 79
L. J. K. B. 481 ; Mo.rii v. Camanmn C. C, 79 L. J. K. B. 670;
OilUm V. Durham C. C, 80 L. J. K. B. 380.

(<■) R. V. Kent, 12 R. R. 330; B. v. Lindtey, 12 B. B. 829;

IMPUKD POWERS A\D DUTIES. fiys

impliedly imposed on them by such an enactment
would be that of protecting the public from any
danger attending the me of the new work. If it
was a swmg bridge, for instance, they would be
bound to take due precautions to prevent persons
from attemptog to cross it, while it was open (a)/
If the work was a railway, crossing a highway ou
a level, they would be impliedly bound to keep
the crossmg in a proper state to admit of the use
of the highway by carriages, without damage to
them (b). °

And this implied obligation would not be
excluded on the principle expre...nm facit cmare
taciturn, by the fact that certain duties are expressly
imposed by statute on railway companies -ho
mat - such crossings ; ,x. ,jr., to erect and
mamtam gates where the public road crosses the
railway, and to employ men to open and shut them
and to keep them closed except when carriages
have to cross (c). So, notwithstanding aU such

a V. Kerr»<m, 14 B. B. 491 ; S. v. m^ (1850), 19 L. J. M 0
223; HertfordsUre C. C. v. Sew Bher Co. (1904), 74 L J Ch
49; North SlaffordMre % Co. v. Dale, 27 L. J. M C 147 •
Leech V. North SU,fford.hire By. Co., 29 L. J. M 0 150-
Laaeathire J; Torlchire By. Co. v. Bury, 14 App. Cas. 417. '

(o) Manley v. St. Helen's Co., 27 h. J. Ex. 159.

(6) Oliver v. N. R By. Co. (1874), L. B. 9 Q. B. 409. See
■Termer v. S. E. By., 55 S. J. 553.

(e) Oliver v. N. E. By. Co. (1874), sup. ; N. E. By. Co. v. Wanleu,
L. B. 7 H. L. 12. See also Wyatt v. 0. W. By. (1865), 34

es»

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

express provisions, the company would be bound,
by implication, to prevent all passage along the
portion of the highway thus intersected, when it
was dangerous to cross (a).

But power to pull down the wall of a house with-
out causing unnecessary inconvenience would not
impliedly involve the obligation of putting up a
hoarding for the prcceotion of the rooms exposed
by the demolition (A). A statutory obligation so to
do is, however, imposed by the London Building
Act, 1894(4

Sometimes the express imposition of one duty
impliedly imposes another. Thus, when it was
enacted that no license for the sale by retail of
beer, cider or wine, not to be consumed on the
premises, should be refused except on one or more
of four specified grounds, the obligation was
imposed by implication on the justices, of stating
on which of the specified grounds they based their
refusal (d). The Ballot Act, 1872, which imposes,

L. J. Q. B. 204 ; distinguished in Gorman v. Waterford ie. By.,
[1900] 2 Ir. E. 341, see p. 348.

(o) £im< V. London & S. W. fly. Co., L. B. 1 Q. B. 277.

(i>) TKomfnan v. HiXl (1870), L. E. 5 0. P. 564.

(c) 57 & 58 Viot. 0. ooxiii., s. 90 (2).

(<J) 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27, s. 8 (repealed, 10 Bdw. VII. and 1
Geo. V. 0. 24, s. 112, Sched. 7) ; B. v. Syiet (1875), 1 Q. B. D.
52 ; 45 L. J. M. C. 39 ; &,«M, £ay., 3 Q. B. D. 374 ; J?, v.
QkatKy JJ. (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 104.

f

IMPUEU POWERS AND DnWES.

687

in express terms, certain specific daties on the
presiding officers at polUng stations, casts also on
those officers, by implication, the duty of being
present at their stations during an election, and of
providing the voters with voting papers bearing
the official mark required by the Act (a).

A duty or right imposed or given to one, may
also cast by implication a corresponding burthen
on another, as in the case of the proviso in the
Commission of the Peace, requiring the Quarter
Sessions not to give judgment in cases of difficulty
unless in the presence of one of the Judges of
Assize ; which impliedly requires the judge to give
his opinion (A). So, the Charitable Trusts Amend-
ment Act, 1855 (c), which enacts that it shall not
be lawful for the trustees of a charity to make any
grant otherwise than (among other things) with
the approval of the Charity Commissioners, was
considered as requiring the Commissioners to give
their approval in a case where the grant was made
before the Act was passed (d).

The grant of a privilege or of property to one,
may sometimes impliedly give a right to another

(o) Pickering v. Jamei' (1873), L. E. 8 0. P. 489 ; considered
in Aden y. Howard (1886), 55 L. J. Q. B. 273.

(!>) Per Our., B. v. Chunlrell, L. B. 10 Q. B. 587.

(c) 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 124, a. 29 (repealed in part, 23 & 24 Viot.
0. 136, s. 1).

(-0 Moore V. Clcich (1870), 1 Ch. U. 147; 43 L. J. Ch. 80.

€i

WB INTIBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

person. Thus, an Act which empowered a hospital
to take and hold lands by will, gift, or porchase,
without incnrring the penalties of the Mortmain
Acts, was held t^ empower persons to devise or
convey lands to it; it being considered that the
Act would otherwise be nugatory (a). But power
given to a corporation to take lands only avoided
the necessity of obtaining a license to hold in mort-
main, and did not affect the disability of the
grantor (b). And an Act which gave one railway
company power to purchase certain lands and to
construct a railway according to the deposited
plans and books of reference, would not give by
implication to another company the correlative
power to sell any of those lands to it (c).

Again, in giving judicial powers to affect prejudi-
cially the rights of person or property, a statute is
understood as silently implying, when it does not
expressly provide, the condition or qualification
that the power is to be exercised in accordance
with the fundamental rules of judicial procedure,
such, for instance, as that which requires that,
before its exercise, the person sought to be

(o) Paring v. Trail (1874), 43 L. J. Ch. 775 ; camp. Nethertolv
\: Indigent Blind, 40 L. J. Ch. 26.

(6) Mogg v. Hodget, 2 Vos. son. 52, cited in M'ebiter v. Southcy
(1887), 36 Oh. D. 9.

((■) S. V. 4'. Walet Bij. Co., lU L. J. Q. B. 272.

IMPLIED JUDICIAL DUTIE8. 689

prejudicially affected shall have an opportunity of
defending himself (a).

On this ground, under the Poor Law Amend-
ment Act, 1834, 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 27 (A),
which authorises justices "at their just and proper
discretion " to order out-door relief to an aged or
infirm pauper who is unahle to work, no such
order could be made without summoning those on
whom the order was to be made(c). So, where
an Act authorised justices, where it appeared that
the appointment of special constables had been
occasioned by the behaviour of persons employed
by railway or other companies, in executing public
works, to make an order on the treasurer of the
company to pay the special constables for their
services, which order, if allowed by a Secretary of
State, should be binding on the company ; it was
held that no such order could be validly made
without giving the company notice, and an

(o) Bags^s Cate, 11 Bep. 99 ; B. v. Fnw. of Cambridge, Stm.
657 ; Emerson v. Sewfoandland, 8 Moo. P. 0. 157 ; Uicp. Bamitag,
21 L. J. Q. B. 238 ; Thorbum v. Banee, h. B. 2 C. P. 384 ;
Be Pollard, L. B. 2 P. C. 106 ; B. v. Jenkitu, 3? L. J. M. C. 1.
"Neque SoythtB neque Sarmatss ita unquam judioarunt,
judicium ab nnfi, parte ferentes, absenti eo qui aoouBBtur
neque leonsanti judicium."— Chrysostoni, Epist. ad Innocen-
tem.

(6) Repealed S. L. B., 1874.

('•) B. V. Totnee Union (1845), 14 L. J. M. C. 148.

640

INTBBFBITATION OF BTATDTU.

opportunity of being heard against it (a). So an
Act wbioti gives a constable power to seize pirated
copies of music, and provides that on the seiisara
of any such copies, a Court of summary juris-
diction shall, on proof that they are infringe-
ments of copyright, order them to be forfeited or
destroyed, gives the Court no power in the absence
of a summons duly served on the person from
whom the music was seized (b). Again, where a
Colonial enactment authorised the Governor to
declare a lease forfeited, if it was proved to the
satisfaction of a Commissioner that the lessee had
failed to reside on the demised land, the Commis-
sioner could not lawfully be satisfied without sum-
moning the lessee and holding a judicial inquiry (c).
The Metropolis Management Act, 1855, which
required that before laying the foundations of a
building a seven days' notice should be given to
the district board, and authorised that board to
order the demolition of any building erected with-
out such notico, was construed as impliedly im-
posing on the board the condition of either giving
the presumed dei :lter a hearing before making
the order, or notice that the order had been made,

(o) 1 A 2 Viot 0. 80 ; B. v. Chethin Limn CommiHee, h. B. 8
Q. B. 344.

(i.) 2 Edw. VII. c. 15. See 6 Edw. VH. o. 36 ; Prancii, Exp.,
[1903] 1 K. B. 275.

(c) Smith V. B; 3 App. Cas. 614.

IHPLtEn JUDICIAL DUTIER.

tMI

10 that he might remonBtrate, or appeal, before
proceeding to the demolition of his building ; and
a district board, which had confined itself to the
letter of the Act, and had demolished a building
respecting which it had received no notice, with-
out first calling on the owner to show cause ag.ilnst
Its order for doing so, was held liable in an action
as a wrong-doer (a). A statute which required
justices to issue a distress warrant to enforce a
rate or other charge, even though it directed them
to issue it "onproof of demand and non-payment,"
would nevertheless be construed as impliedly
requiring that they should not do so, without
first summoning the party against whom it was
demanded, and giving him a hearing against ,'e
step proposed to be taken against him {/>).

An Act which empowered a bishop, when it
appeared to his satisfaction, either from his own
knowledge or from proof laid before him, that the
duties of a benefice were inadequately performed, to
require the incumbent to appoint and pay a curate ;
and if he failed to comply within three months,'

(n) 18 & 19 Viot. 0. 120, s. 76 (amended 25 & 26 Vict. o. 102) ;
Cooper V. Wmdmnrtli Board (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. 18,5 ■
Chrienwell Tettry v. Fmry, 24 Q. B. D. 703 ; Hopih, v.
Smethmck Local Board, 24 Q. B. D. 712 ; A.-G. v Hoomr
[1893] 3 Ch. 484. ' ^ '

(i) See Harper v. Cnrr, 4 R. B. 440; S. V. Hnghei,, 3 A. * E.
425 ; PainU-r v. Liverpool (Iok Co., Id. 433.

r.s. 41

643

INTKBPKBTATION or ITATUTB8.

himself to make the appointment and to fix tl
stipend; was considered as importing the san
condition of giving a hearing before exercising tt
power; and, therefore, as not authorising tfa
bishop, even when acting on his own person)
knowledge., to issue the requisition (which was i
the nature of a judgment) without having give
the holder of the benefice an opportunity of bein
heard (a).

A power to remove a person from his ofiSoe c
employment for lawful cause only, would, on th
same principle, involve the condition that it wa
to be exercisable only after a due hearing, or th
opportunity of being heard, had been given to th
person proposed to be removed (6). But it would
of course, be different if the person was remov
able arbitrarily and without any cause bein)
assigned (c).

It is obvious that where an Act which creates i
new jurisdiction, gives any person dissatisfied witl

(a) Cafel T. Child (1832), 37 R R 761 ; 1 L. J. Ex. 205
questioned by Alderson B. in Hammenmith BaU Charge, S,
(1849), 4 Ex. 94. See Bonaker v. Etant, 20 L. J. Q. B. 137
BartUil V. Kirwood, 23 L. J. Q. B. 9. Comp. Marqui, oj
Abenjavetmy v. Llaudaff {Bp.) (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 460; HI
h. J. Q. B. 233.

(i.) B. V. Smith, 13 L. J. Q. B. 160.

(c) Tealher, Exp., 19 h. J. M. C. 70; B. v. Darlington School,
14 L. .1. Q. B. 67; B. v. Baylji, [1898] 2 Ir. H. 335, 347;
Snndi/s, Exp., 4 B. & Ad. 863.

IHPLIRD JUDICIAL DDTIKB. (^3

its decision an appeal to another judicial authority
which is empowered to confirm or annul the deoi-
Mon, as to it shall appear just and proper, the right
of bemg heard in support of his appeal is impliedly
given to the appellant (a).

Under the provision of the first County Court
Act (9 & 10 Vict. 0. 95) (ft), which empowered the
judge, if satisfied on the hearing of a judgment
debtors summons that the judgment debtor had
the means of paying his debt, to order him to
pay It either in one sum or by instalments, and if
he failed to obey, to commit him to jail ; it was
held that an order to pay by future instalments
and in default of paying any of them to be com-
mitted, was invalid ; for it made the debtor liable
to imprisonm ■ t for not making a payment at a
future time, withoi t then having an opportunity
of defending himself. As the language of the Act
was not inconsistent with the general principle
that a person ought not to be punished without
having had an opporiiunity of being heard, it was
construed as tacitly embodying it. The judge
could not properly exercise any discretion until
the time of commitment (c-).

(a) JR. V. Canterbury (Archbp.), 2H L. J. Q. B. 154. See other
instances, P/,/%,' Ckaril!,. Be, 9 Jur. 959; Fremington School ,
Be, 10 Jur. 512 ; Davenport v. B., 3 App. Cas. 115.

(b) Bepealed 51 & 52 Vict. o. 43, a. 188.

(c) See Kiminy't Can, lOQ. H. 730 ; Kinning v. Bu,},anan,

644

INTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

It would be different where the statute gave a
power of immediate commitment in default of im-
mediate payment (a). And again, if the opportunity
of defence was provided at another stage, there
would be no adequate ground for thus implying
the condition in question. For instance, when a
statute provided that if a rent-charge was in arrear,
it might be levied by distress, and that if it
remained in arrear for 40 day^ and there was
no distress, a judge, upon an aflSdavit of these
facts, might order the sheriff to summon a jury
to assess the arrears unpaid; it was held that
such an order might well be made ex parte. The
party subject to prejudice had his opportunity of
defence before the sheriff (6). So, where an Act
authorised justices to inquire and adjudge the
settlement of a pauper lunatic, and to make an
order on his parish to pay for his maintenance,
and empowered the parish to appeal against any
such order; it was held that the order might
be made without giving the parish sought to be
affected notice of the intended inquiries (c). And

' iH

8 C. B. 271 ; AWey v. Bale, 10 C. B. 62. See also Heiketh v.
Atherton, L. B. 9 Q. B. 4 ; Lotering v. Dawton, h. B. 10 C. P.
711. Comp. Sionor v. Fowle (1887), 57 L. J. Q. B. 387;
Watton, In re (1892), 62 L. J. Q. B. 85.

(a) Arnold v. Diirudale, 22 L. J. M. C. 161.

(ii) Hammersmith Sertt Charge, Be (1849), 19 L. J. Ex. 66.

(c)ittoiii/e«ji, Exp., 5 D. & L. 404.

IMPLIED JUSICUL DDTIB8.

645

an applioatiou to the Court by a trustee in bank-
raptoy for leave to prosecute a bankrupt for .an
ofiEence under certain repealed sections of the
Debtors Act, 1869 (a), was properly made ex parte
and without notice to the bankrupt (6).

An Act which empowers two or more justices, or
other persons (c), to do any act of a judicial, as
distinguished from a ministerial, nature impliedly
requires that they should all be personally present
and acting together in its performance, whether to
hear the evidence, or t' view when they are to act
on personal inspection (d) ; to consult together, and
form their judgment {e) ; and in the case of justices
authorised to try offences summarily, to abstain
from exercising their jurisdiction when it appears
that a bona fide claim of right or title is set up (/).

(a) See 8 Edw. VII. o. 15, a. 10 (I), and 4 & 5 Geo. V. o. 5y,
B. 168, Sobed. 6.

(h) Mandm, Exf. (1876), 2 Ch. D. 786.

(c) So, directors of oompanies, D'Arcy v. Tamar By. Co.
(1866), L. B. 2 Ex. 158 ; Haya-aft Gold Beditetion i: Mining Co.,
In re (1900), 69 L. J. Oh. 497. But see Duck v. Touer

Galtamting Co. (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 625.

(d) S. V. Cambridgethire, 4 A. & E. 111.

(e) Billingt v. Prinn, 2 W. Bl. 1017 ; B. v. Umniiall Bidmie,
3 T. E. 380; B. v. Forrest, Id. 38; B. v. Wiitwkk, ti. T. E.
454 ; Ballye v. Graley, 8 East, 319 ; Grindlty v. Barker, 4 E. E.
787 ; Cooh v. Lowland, 5 B. E. 533 ; B. v. Mttle, 2 B. & \i.
578 ; B. V. Tolnea, 18 L. J. M. C. 46 ; B. v. Amorowjh, 18
L. J. M. C. 81.

(/) Per Blackburn J., While v. Feo** (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B.

646

INTEBPRBTATION OP STATUTES

When the act to be performed is ministerial, it ii
not necessary, on general principles, that the per
sons authorised to do it should meet together fo:
the purpose; and the statute which gave sucl
authority would therefore not be construed ai
impliedly requiring it (a).

When a new jurisdiction is given to an existinr
Court to deal with new matter in a different mod*
and a different procedure, it is understood, unlesf
the contrary be expressed or plainly implied, to b«
intended to be exercised according to the general
inherent powers of the Court (i).

It has been already mentioned that when a power
is conferred to do some act of a judicial nature, ot
of public concern and interest, there is implied an
obligation to exercise it, when the occasion for it
arises (c). This implied obligation is usually said
to modify the language creating the power, when
permissive, by making it imperative; but it seems
to be a matter of implied enactment, rather than
of verbal interpretation.

358 ; 41 L. J. M. C. 81 ; BiVnie v. Manhall (1876), 35 L. T.
373 ; Brooka v. Hnmlyn (1899) 79 L. T. 734.

fa) Hopper. Be (1867), L. B. 2 Q. B. 367. Explained in
Daudy, In re (1885), 15 Q. B. D. 426 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. 474.

(i) Dale't Ctue (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 376.

(c) Sup. pp. 424 -443.

IMPEEATIVE OB DIBECTORY.

647

SECTION m. — IMPERATIVE OR DIRECTORY.

When a statute requires that something shall
be done, or done in a particular manner or form,
without expressly declaring what shall be the
consequence of non-compliance, the question often
arises, what intention is to be attributed by infer-
ence to the Legislatm-e? Where, indeed, the
whole aim and object of the Legislature would
be plainly defeated if the command to do the
thing in a particular manner did not imply a
prohibition to do it in any other, no doubt can be
entertained ns to the intention. The enactment,
for instance, of the Metropolitan Building Act,
1866(a), that the walls of buildings should be
constructed of brick, stone, or other incombustible
material, though containing no prohibitory words,
obviously prohibited by implication and made
illegal their construction with any other (b). So,
the directions in the rubrics of the Prayer Book
for the performance of the rites and ceremonies
of the Church, are equally imperative in prohibit-
ing all omissions and additions (c). Again, where

(o) 18 & 19 Viot c. 122, s. 12 (repealed, 57 A 58 Viot.
c. coxiii., B. 21S, Sohed. 4).

(b) Stetem V. Gonrley, 29 L. J. C. P. 1.

(c) Wetterlon v. LiddeU (1857 ), reported by Moore, p. 187 ;
Wnrlin V. Maconochie (1868), L. R. 2 P. C. 365 ; 38 L. J. Eco.
187.

648

INTEttPBETATION OF STATUTES.

'% ^^..

ill

compliance is made, in terms, a oonditioa piece-
dent, to the validity or legality of what is done ;
as when, for example, the deed of a married woman
was to take efifeot " when " the certificate of her
acknowledgment of it was filed (a); or where in
bankruptcy it was provided that no appeal should
be entertained " unless " certain rules were com-
plied with (6); the neglect of the statutory
requisites would obviously be fatal. It is now,
however, enacted by s. 147 (1) of the Bankruptcy
Act, 1914, that no formal defect shall invalidate
proceedings.

The reports are full of cases without any
indications of intention ; in some of which the con-
ditions, forms, or other attendant circumstances,
prescribed by the statute have been regarded as
essential to the act or things regulated by it, and
their omission has bee:^ held fatal to its validity ;
while in others, such prescriptions have been con-
sidered as merely du'ectory, the neglect of which
did not affect its validity, or involve any other
consequence than a liability to a penalty, if any
were imposed, for breach of the enactment (c).
The propriety, indeed, of ever treating the pro-

Co) 3 & 4 WUl. IV. 0. 74, s. 86 (repealed, 45 k 46 Vict. o. 39,
3. 7) ; Jolly V. Hancock, 22 L. J. Ex. 38.

(d) 32 i 33 Vict. o. 71 (repealed, 46 & 47 Viot. o. 52, s. 169) ;
Dickinwm, Be (1882), 51 L. J. Oh. 736.

(c) Camp. sup. p. 424 el >eq.

mPKKATIVE OB UIRECTOBY.

649

visions of any statute in the latter manner has
been sometimes questioned (a) ; but it is justifiable
in principle as well cs abundantly established by
numerous authorities.

It has been said that no rule can be laid down
for determining whether the command is to be con-
sidered as a mere direction or instruction involving
no invalidating consequence in its disregard, or as
imperative, with an implied nuUification for dis-
obedience, beyond the fundamental one that it
depends on the scope and object of the enact-
ment (4). It may, perhaps, be found generally
correct to say that nullification is the natural and
usual consequence of disobedience ; but the ques-
tion is in the main governed by considerations of
convenience and justice (c), and when that result
would involve general inconvenience or injustice
to innocent persons, or advantage to those guilty
of the neglect, without promoting the real aim
and object of the enactment, such an intention
is not to be attributed to the Legislature.

In the first place, a strong line of distinction
may be drawn between cases where the prescriptions

(a) Per Martin B., Bowman v. B/ytt, 7 E. & B. 47 ; Sedgwick
on Interp. of Stats., p. 375.

(6) Per Lord Campbell, Lherpool Borough Bank v. Turner, 2
De G. P. & J. S07 ; per Lord Penzance, Uouard v. Bodington, 2
P. D. 211.

(c) See per Lush J., B. v. Imjull, 2 Q. B. D. 208.

060

INTBBPBETATION OF 8T .rUTES,

of the Act affect the performanoe of a duty,
and where they relate to a privilege or power (a).
Where powers or rights are granted, with a direc-
tion that certain regalations or formalities shall be
complied with, it seems neither unjust nor incon-
venient to exact a rigorous observance of them
as essential to the acquisition of the right or
authority conferred : and it is therefore probable
that such was the intention of the Legislature.
But when a pubUc duty is imposed, and the
statute requires that it shall be performed in a
certain manner, or within a certain time, or under
other specified conditions, such prescriptions may
well be regarded as intended to be directory only
in cases when injustice or inconvenience to others
who have no control over those exercising the
duty would result if such requirements were
essential and imperative.

Taking the former class of oases, it seems that
when a statute confers a right, privilege, or
immunity, the regulations, forms, or conditions
which it prescribes for its acquisition are impera-
tive, in the sense that non-observance of any of
them is fatal. Thus, where the repealed Engrav-
ing Copyright Act, 1734, gave to the designers
of prints the sole right of printing them igi 14
yeai's after the day of publication, adding, " which
(day) shall be truly engraved, with the name of

(a) See per Denman J., Caldmn v. Pixrll, 2 0. P. D. 563.

IHPEBATITE OB DIBECTOBY

661

the proprietor, on each plate " ; it was held that
the neglect to comply with this provision was
fatal to the copyright (a). So, under the repealed
Copyright Act, 1842, that no proprietor of copy-
right in a book should be entitled to sue for its
infringement unless he had made an entry at
Stationers' Hall of the title and time of the first
publication of the book, and the name and abode
of the publisher, it was held that a suit was not
maintainable, where the day of publication was
not stated truly, or only the month was stated;
or the publishers were not described correctly,
that is, neither by the style of the fii-m, nor by
the names of the individual partners (6). The
innkeeper whose common law liability for the
goods of his guests is limited, if he posts up a
notice as required by 26 & 27 Vict. c. 41, does not
obtain the exoneration, if his notice is inaccurate
in anv material particular (c). So it was held

(a) 8 Geo. II. 0. 13, repealed 1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 46, a. 36,
Sohed. 2 ; Newton v. Coale, 29 B. R 541 ; Brmkt v. Cock, 42
R. B. 348 ; Avmao v. Mmdie, 10 Ex. 203.

(6) 5 & 6 Viot. c. 45 (repealed 1 & 2 Geo. V. c. 46, b. 36,
Sohed. 2). See also 7 & 8 Viot. o. 12 (repealed 1 & 2 Geo. V.
0. 46, s. 36, Sohed. 2). For a disquisition on the Copyright
Act, 1911, which consolidates the law of Copyright, see Clerk and
LindseU on ToriM, Chap. XXI. ; Low v. linntledge. 33 L. J. Ch.
717 ; Wood v. liomey, L. B. 2. Q. B. 340 ; Malhirmii v. Sarrod,
Ij. B. 7 Bq. 270 ; Btnderton v. Maxwell, 5 Ch. D. 892.

(c) Spice V. Biu-nn (1H77). 2 Ex. D. 463, See Ore'jvm v.
Potter, 4 Ex. D. 142 ; Malhn- v. Brown, 1 C. P. D. 590.

862

INTKBPBBTATION OF aTATUTKU.

that a declaration made by a lodger under the
repealed Lodgers' Goods Protection Act, 1871 (a),
must rigidly comply with the provisions of that
Act, which was made for the benefit of the land-
lord as well as the lodger, and conseqaently a
declaration made at the time of levying one dis-
tress would not protect the lodger against a
subsequent distress, but he must make a fresh
declaration (b). A repealed Act which, in authoris-
ing,the confinement of lunatics, prohibited their
reception in asylums without medical certificates
in a given form, setting forth several particulars,
and among them, the street and number of the
house where the supposed lunatic was examined,
made a strict compliance with those provisions
imperative ; so that a certificate which omitted
the street and number of the house where the
examination took place, was held insufficient to
justify the detention of the lunatic {«). Where it

(a) Bepealed by 8 Edw. VII. o. 63, a. 8.

(6) 34 & 36 Viot. o. 79, 8. 1 ; TlmiaUa v. Wilding, 63 L. J.
Q. B. 734 ; QodUmion t. FMam A HamfUad Property Co., 74
L J. K. B. 242. Thfl following are decisions under the Law
of Distress Amendment Act, 1908: Jarvit t. Bemmingt(No. 1),
[1912] 1 Ch. 462 ; Roger,, EungUiU & Co. V. Jfortii. (1910), 26
T. L. B. 469 ; affirmed, [1911] 1 K. B. 19, 0. A. As to goods com-
prised in a hire purchase agreement, see iMnion Furnithing Co. v.
Solomon (1912), 28 T. L. B. 265 ; Jay'H Furnishing Go. v. Brand d
Co., [1914] 2 K. B. 132; affirmed, [1915] 1 K. B. 458; but
see Hathney Fitmithing Co. v. Wattt (1913), 38 T, h. B, 417.

(c) 16 & 17 Vict. 0. 96. The care and treatment of lunatics

IMPEBATrVK on DIBECTOHY

ASS

was enacted that a person who objected to a voter's
quaUfioation might be heard in support of his objec-
tion, if he had given notice to the voter ; and it
was provided that, besides the ordinary way of
serving it, the notice might be sent by post,
addressed to his place of abode " as described " in
the Ust of voters prepared by the clerk of the peace ;
it was held that to send by post a notice, not to the
address so given, which was incorrect, but to the
true address, was not a compliance with the Act,
and therefore that the objector could not be heard
on mere proof of posting the notice (a).

Sec. 66, Merchant Shipping Act, 1854 (repealed,
8. 24, Merchant Shipping Act, 1894), which
enacted that ships should be transferred by an
instrument in a form containing certain par-
ticulars, and executed with certain formalities,
and registered, was deemed to render an unregis-
tered mortgage of a ship inoperative (6) ; although

is now regulated by 53 4 S4 Viot. o. 5. As to cases of mental
deCoienoy, see 3 & 4 Geo. V. o. 28 ; B. v. P;»<fer, 24 L. J. Q. B.
148. Comp. ShullleKorth, Be, 16 L. J. M. C. 18.

(o) NoteKorthn ▼• BucUand, 43 L. J. C. P. 27. See Gifford
y. Si. Luie\ Chrhm (1889), 24 Q. B. D. 141 (uot followed in
Gage v. JlT'DaW, [1898] W. N. 104); Smith v. Hug;,.!!, 31 L. J.
C. P. 38 ; Hinkt v. Sa/eti) Lighting Co., 4 Ch. D. 607.

(6) Per Lord Campbell, Liverpool Borough hank y. Turner, 30
h. J. Ch. 379. Comp. Wani v. Beeh, 32 L. .T. C. P. 113;
StapleUm^ v. Hai^en, 33 L. 3. Ex. 170. See The Andaluinan
(1878), 3 P. D. 182 ; C/<a«(«iiinf„/ v. Capeynm, 7 App. Cas. 127.

6M

INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

i-''".i:«'- ■ t

there was no express deolarstiou, as in the earliei
and repealed Act in pari viattriti, that transfers in
any other form should be null and void (a). So, it
was held in one case, that s. 97 of the Com-
panies Clauses Consolidation Act, 1846, whioL
prescribes the form in which contracts " may " be
entered into on behalf of companies, was impera-
tive (b) ; but in another it was thought that, being
in the affirmative, they did not take away pre-
existing rights and powers, and that a contract,
not complying with its provisions, bat parti;
performed (c), might be enforced (d). When a
company or public body is incorporated or estab-
lished by statute for special purposes only, and is
altogether the creature of statute law, the prescrip-
tions for its acts and contracts are imperative and
essential to their validity («). If its articles of

(a) Comp. Le Femre v. Mttttr, 36 L. J. M. G. 175 ; as to
mortgages of ships sold to {oreignecs, see s. S3, 6 & 7 Edw. VII.
0. 48 (Menhant Shipping Act, 1906).

ill) Leomituler Canal Co. v. Shreieihurji lie. %. Oo. (1857), 36
L. J. Ch. 764.

(e) See sup. p 454 et teq.

(d) Wilton V. Wetl Harllepool Co., 34 L. J. Ch. 341. See Orem
V. Jenkiiu, 39 L. J. Cb. 505.

(t) Cope V. Thamet Haven &c. Co., 18 L. I. Ex. 345 ; LiggU
V. London <t Blaclwiall By. Co., 19 L. J. Ex. 308 ; Frend v.
Dmneti, 37 L. J. C. P. 314. See also Cornwall Mining Co. v.
Bmnett, 39 L. J. Ex. 157 ; Irith Peat Co. v. Phillipa, 30 L. J.
Q. B. 363 ; Young v. Leamington (Mayor), 8 App. Cas. 517 ;
Botlomley'i Case, 16 Ch. D. 681. See further, sup. pp. 618, 619.

IMPIBATITK OB DIBEOTORT. A55

BssooiBtion prescribed the attestation of proxies
the omission of this formaUty would vitiate them (a)
Such a company, empowered to borrow by mort^
gage, under certain circumstanoes, not more than
a given sum, to be appUed in carrying out the Act
would be hmited to its stavatory power, and all
borrowmg not so expressly authorised would be
mvahd as regarded the comfany (6).

So, enactments regulating he procedure in Courts
seem usuaUy to be imperative and not merely direc-
tory (c). If, for instance, an appeal from a decision
be given, with provisions requiring the fulfilment of
certain conditions, such as giving notice of appeal
and entering into recognisances, or transmitting
documents within a certain time, a strict com-
pliance would be imperative, and non-compliance
would be fatal to the appeal (</). The S7 Geo. III.

(«) fl«,6«, V. Phaiij.. 23 Ch. D. 14 ; distinguished in Bro^n.
V. la Tnnidad (1887), 37 Ch. Div. 1.

(4) Wmlcck V. iitnir Dee Co. (18a5), 10 A C 364
H.L.(B.); 8»M York.hire By. Co. v. Oreal N. % Co., bud'
p. 619; Chamber, v. Xancheeter Ac. By. Co., 33 L. .J. Q. B. 268
0»«p. Cork and Toughal By. Co., Be L. R., 4 Ch. 74a Se^
Coltv,a«, Be. 19 Ch. D. 64. As to an impUed right to borrow
see Oeneral Auction E,late and Monetary Co. v. SmUh [18911
3 Oh. 432, and sup. p. 626 n. ^

(e) See, however, inf. p. 672 et teq.

W B. V. Oxfordehire, 1 M. & S. 446; R. v. Carnarvon 22
R. B. 636; B. v. Bond, 6 A. & E. 905; B. v. Uncaehire, 27
L. J. M. C. 161 ; Morgan v. Edaardt, 29 L. J. M. C. 108 ; Wood-
i««f V. Woods, 29 L. J. M. C. 149; Fox v. WallU 2 C P. D

8M

ISTBBPRBTATION OF HTATUTRB.

0. 00 (a), which required that uo action shoald b«
brought against a clergyman for any penalty
incurred under it, until notice had been delivered
to him, and also to the bishop "by leaving the
game at the registry of his diocese," was held,
with perhaps extreme rigour, not complied with by
a delivery to the deputy registrar at the house oi
the latter, who carried it next day to the registry (b).
The County Court rule, which required that in
actions to recover land the summons should be
delivered to the bailiff 40 days at least before
the return day, and be served within 35 days
before that day, was similarly held imperative;
so that if the summons were not delivered to the
bailiff in due time, though the latter should serve
it in the prescribed time, the judge would have no
jurisdiction to try the cause (c).

The provision of the Public Health Act, 1875,
that "every appointment of an arbitrator under
the Act when made on behalf of the local authority

46; B. V. Angleuf Jut., [1892] 2 Q. B. 29; Peacock v. Tke
Queen, 27 L. J. 0. P. 224 ; Atpimn v. SuUcm, 63 L. J. M. 0.
20S; SimpUn, Exp., 39 L. J. M. 0. 23.

(a) Bopealed, 1 * 2 Viot. o. 106, s. 1.

(I) 7aux V rdlarn, 38 E. B. 305; 4 B. & Ad. 526; referred
to in Howard v. BndingUm (1877), 2 P. D., at p. 211.

(c) Barker v. Palmer, 8 Q. B. D. 9. The rule was amended
in 1883 80 as to meet the point raised in this case. See also
Broum V. Sham, 1 Ex. D. 425 ; Tetmant v. Bawlingt, 4 C. P. D.
133 ; WilUamii v. Strnmea Canal Co., It. B. 3 Ex. 168.

ntPWATITB OB DmBOTOBr eS7

shaU be under their common seal and „n k i „ ,
a«y other party under hU S^, ^^f°^
been held to' be m^^daLy (a) ' '" '"•^"^^
The rame imperative effect seems, in . .„ .r,,i
presumed to be intended, even wher^ . ,
vanoe of the formalities is not a coudi ., u . aJ >"
from the party seeking the benefit .i, , ,.,

^^te. but a duty imposed on a C.:. :':,::
offloer m the exercise of the powe. ,:o fo,/ , ^

deemed fatal to the validity of an arrest made fn
pursuance of the writ, though it had been Tntll ^
m the Crown Office(6). An enactment which

'r^"t ''"'' '""'^ '"^'^' ««»ed bll Court
should be under its seal, was equally Lper,^
and no only was a commitment under an unsealed

It without takmg care that the Court performed

L. J. Q. B. 181. As to juriBdiotion of an arbitavtor when on!
of the pa^ee has withdrawn lus notice disp^ 1^.^

(i) D<.fe'. Caec (1881), 6 Q. B. D. 376; note pp. 403, 403 as
to repeal by necessary impiiuaUou of the Act of iuabeh
1.8.

i-2

658

INTEBPBETATION OF BTATUTIS.

its duty of sealing it, waa held liable in damages i
the person anested under it (a). This was hard c
the former, but it was essential for the latter thi
the warrant should be duly authenticated. So, tl
strict observance of the Provision in the Publ
Worship Eegulation Act, 1874, requiring that tl
bishop shall send to the inculpated clergyman
copy of the representation of the illegal acl
imputed to him, within 21 days, was held essei
tial to the validity of the proceedings subsequent!
taken against him ; so that those proceedings wei
void where the copy had not been sent till after tb
prescribed time (b). If commissioners, authorise
to fix the boundaries of a parish, were required b
the Act to advertise the boundaries which theyfixe(
and to insert them in their award, and the Ac
declared that the boundaries " so fixed " should h
conclusive ; a variation between the boundaries sc
forth in the award and those advertised woul
vitiate the award, as the requisites of the Act woul
not have been complied with (c). Where a statut
enacts that convictions or orders shall be in

(a) Fan landau, Exp., De 6. 303. So, a rate under 11 & 1
Vict. 0. 63, 8. 149 (repealed, 38 & 39 Viot c. 55, s. 313, Sohed. \
pt. III.) ; B. V. Worlmp Board, ?i L. J. M. 0. 220 ; discusu
Smith V. SoatlamfUm Corp., [1902] 2 K. B., at p. 250.

(6) Uoaard v. Bodingion (1877), 2 P. D. 203.

(c) &. V. Waihbrook, 4 B. & C. 732; B. v. Arkwright, ]
L. J. Q. B. 36.

IMPBBATIVE OB DIBECTOBY. 659

held obviously imperative • for tZ

wo^d We left persons a«grievS b ' nrauZ

faons^thoutatimelyopportunityforappeiiZ^^^

words, as directory only. The n<^„Ll f T
may be penal (/,),ldeel bat itToeT °t ^''^
the vaU^ty of the act doie in disre^d o tt^
It has often been held, for instance when al a"

when It was to be done, that the Act was direc-
tory only, and might be complied with after the

((-) Soc ox. gr. Clarke v. 6'»„^ 22 L. J. Ex. 67.

660

INTBRPBETATION OF STATUTES.

prescribed time (a). Thus, the 13 Hen. IV. o. 7
which required justices to try rioters " within i
month " after the riot, was held not to limit th<
authority of the justices to that space of time, bu
only to render them liable tr a penalty fo
neglect (h). To hold that an Act which requirei
an o£Bcer to prepare and deliver to another office
a list of voters, on or before a certain day,* unde
a penalty, made a list not delivered till a later da;
invalid, would, in effect, put it in the power of th
person charged with the duty of preparing it, t
disfranchise the electors ; a conclusion too un
reasonable for acceptance (c).

The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1834 (d), ii
providing that the Commissioners should direct th
elections of one or more guardians for each paris]
included in the Union, did not make the constitu
tion of the Board of Guardians Invalid becaus
one parish refused to elect a guardian (e). Th
enactment in the Ecclesiastical Dilapidations Act

(o) Per Littledale J., Smith v. Junes, 1 B. & Ad. 334.

{h) R V. Ingram, 2 Salk. 593.

(c) 5 & G Wm. rV. 0. 7fi (repealed, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 50, s. 5]
n. V. Rochester (1851), 7 B. J: B. 910; Hunt v. Bibbs, 29 L. ;
Ex. 222 ; Morgan v. Parry, 25 L. J. C. P. 141 ; BrumfiU i
Bremner, 30 L. J. C. P. 33; B. v. Loflhouse, L. E. 1 Q. B. 433
a. V. Ingall, 2 Q. B. D. 199.

(rf) 4 & 5 Will. IV. 0. 76

(e) a. V. Todnwruen (1841), 1 Q. B. 183.

IMPERATIVE OR niREOTORy. ggj

make good the dalapidations, is directory only as
to the time; for it was a duty, not aTriviLr
which the statute imposed on the bishop ;a^hs
neglect, a otherwise have defeated' he ^Jje
of the statute by rendering the estate of the ate

^ons(/0. 5 Geo. IV. c. 84, having enacted that

IvP v\"r^''* "^J"^^"'' *" t^o'^BPortation by
any Bntish Court out of the United Kingdom was
brought to England to be transported. It should
be lawful to imprison him in any place of confine-
ment provided under the Act, it was held that if
the place in which a prisoner was confined was
not one of the appointed places, the officers
concerned might be liable to censure, but the
detention was not unlawful so as to entitle the
prisoner to be discharged (c).

It is no impediment to this construction, that
there is no remedy for non-compliance with the
direction. 2 Hen. V. c. 4(rf), which requires

uiilMtl. 2t "' '' ^^"°'^' '' ' '' ^'"'- '■ ''' ^■"'

[h) Per Denman J., CaMou, v. p;xcll, 2 G. P. D 566 ■ aieavr.
V. Mnrrmer (1870), 1 Ex. D. 107.

(c) Bre»a„'. Case, 16 L. J. Q. B. 285. Transportation
ahohshed. See sup. p. 2fi2.

('?) nupealed as to England by S. I,. K., JHfi:!, sa\e s. 2.

•'4-

i;

082

INTBBPBBTATION OP STATUTES.

justices to hold their sessions in the first week
after Michaelmas, Epiphany, Easter, and the
translation of St. Thomas the Mart3T, has always
been held to be merely directory (a). So, 6
Eioh. II. 0. 5, which requires the justices to hold
their sessions in the principal towns of their
county, was held to be directory, not coercive (6).
And yet it would be difficult to say that there
would be any remedy against justices for appoint-
ing their sessions on other days or places than
those prescribed by the statute (c ).

The same construction was put on 54 Geo. III.
c. 84, which enacted that the Michaelmas sessions
should be held in the week after the 11th of
October, instead of the time then appointed (rf) ;
though such a construction would seem to have
left the earlier law substantially unaltered, an
intention not lightly to be imputed to the Legis-
lature.

Though 43 Eliz. c. 2 requires that overseers of
the poor sliall be appointed yearly in Easter week,
they may lawfully be appointed at any other time of
the year («). In the same wav, enactments fixing
the time for the election of > hurchwardens and

(o) 2 Hale, P. C. 50.
(6) Id. 39.

(c) Per Parke B., Qteynne v. Burnett, 2 Bing. N. C. 39.

(d) S. V. Leicealer, 7 B. & C. 6.

(e) B. V. Siiarrow, 2 Stra. 1123.

rMPBBATIVK OB DIBBCTOBY. ggs

Other parochial and i^unioipal officers, have been

if 1 .' "1'°'^ ""^y^"^' "'•■ ^* ^U events,
If imperafave. they would not be construed as

Sr^. .f i-nplication the Court of Queen's
Ben^h of he power of ordering an election at
a different time from that prescribed, where there
iad been a wrongful omission to hold it at the
proper time, and public inconvenience resulted
trom the omission (6).

So, the regulations for the conduct of elections
nnder the Ballot Act, 1872 (c), are so far directory
only, that an election is not invalidated by the
non-observance of them, unless the non-observance
was of a character contrary to the principle of the
Act, or might have affected the result of the
election (rf) ; and, under the same Act, the require-
ment that the presiding officer shaU stamp his
mark on the face of each ballot paper delivered
to a voter is directory, whilst a like requirement
as regards the mark on the back of the baUot
paper is, without doubt, imperative (e).

(o) A«m., 1 Ventr. 267 ; B. v. Oor/e MuUen, 1 B. & Ad 211 •
B. V. Denby,Mre, i East, 142; B. v. Normch, 1 B, 4 Ad 310 '•
-8. V. Sneyd, 61 B. B. 843.
(6) B. V. Sparrw, 2 Stra. 1123; B. v. Bochester, 7 E. & B.

(c) 35 & 36 Viot. 0. 33.

(d) Woodward v. Sartow, L. E. 10 C. P. 733 ; Philllm v C.off
17 Q. B. D. 805. '

(«) Akera v. Howard, 55 L. J. Q. B. 273.

M4

IXTERPRKTATIOtf OF BTATCTES.

The 26 Geo. II. o. 14 (a), which " required " the
justices of the peace in England to settle a table
of fees at their quarter sessions " held next aftei
the 24th of June, 1753," and, such table being
approved by the justices " at the next succeeding
general quarter sessions," to lay it before the
judges at the next assize for confirmation, was
held imperative as to the requirement that a table
settled at one sessions should be confirmed ai
the next ; so ^ihat one which had been submitted
for confirmation at the next, but had not beer
confirmed till a later sessions, to which its con-
sideration had been adjourned, was invalid (6),
But, prior to the passing of the Criminal Justice
Administration Act, 1914, which alters the law, i<
would have been competent to the justices ai
quarter sessions to settle a table at a subsequent
date to that prescribed, though the statute requirec
them to do it in 17.53. It was a duty which thej
might be compelled to perform ; and in thif
respect the statute was directory (c).

The usual provision in the commission of the
peace that no justice named in it shall be capable
of acting or authorised to act unless he shall have

(a) Bepealed, 4 & 5 Geo. V. c. 58, B. 44, Sohei 4. Ab to existinj
Boale of fees, see s. 6 and Scbed. 1, Criminal .Tustioe Administra
tdon Act, 1914.

(b) Bowman v. BIyih, 26 L. J. M. C. 57 See also Williams v
Suatuea Nov., L. B. 3 Ex. 158.

(c) LtmU V. DamM, L. B. 10 Ex. 86.

mmm^^rm

IHPERATIVK OR DIRECTOBy 66S

taken the oaths required hy law, would lead to
intolerable inconvenience and injustice if it were
imperative, and struck with invalidity every act of
an unqualified justice. If his acts were held void,
it was pointed out by the King's Bench, all persons
who acted in the execution of a warrant issued
by him, would act without authority; a constable
who arrested, and a gaoler who received the
arrested person, under it, would be trespassers.
Resistance to them would be lawful ; everything
done by them would be unlawful ; and a constable,
and the persons aiding him might become amen-
able even to a charge of murder, for acting under
an authority which they reasonably considered
themselves bound to obey, and of the invalidity
of which they were wholly ignorant (<«). Such
consequences could not reasonably be supposed
to have been intended; the interest of the public
required that the acts should be sustained; and
the just conclusion was that the Legislature in-
tended by the prohibition only to impose a penalty
for its infringement.

On the same general ground, the acts of alder-
men who had been in oflSoe for several years

(a) 18 Geo. II. c. 20 (repealed, 6 Edw. VII. o. 16, s. fl (2),
Sched., which see for existing qualifications) ; 51 Geo. III. c. 36
(repealed as to certain places. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 48, s. 5) ; Margate
Pier Co. V. Hannam, 3 B. * Aid. 266. Comp. B. v. Verehl, 14
R. R. 776.

MS

IVTKBPRKTATION OF STATUTES.

witiLont re-eleotion, were held valid nntil their
Baooesson were appointed ; the provision that
they should be elected annually being regarded
as directory only (a).

The provisii J in s. 56, of the Act relating to
Mutiny, 13 & 1 i ''^ict. o. 6 (repealed, s. 80, Army
Act, 1881, m .('!•■ id by subsequent legislation),
that a recruit <'iall, on enlistment, be asked certain
questions touching his personal history was con-
sidered merely directory, and the omission to ask
them did not invalidate the enlistment (A) ; for
another section provided that every person who
received enlisting money should be deemed an
enlisted soldier. The Parochial Assessments Act,
1830 (G & 7 Will. IV. c. 96), after requiring that
every poor rate should set forth a number of
particulars given in a form, respecting the persons
and properties rated, and that the churchwardens
and overseers should sign a declaration at the foot
of the form, added that " otherwise the rate shall
be of no force "(c); it was held that these last
words were confined to the signatures, and did not
affect the validity of the rate when the other

(o) Font V. Truro, 1 Stra. 625. See also Seadding v. LoranI,
13 Q. B. 687, and Holgate v. Slight, 21 L. J. Q. B. 74. See B.
V. Oor/e MuBen, 1 B. ife Ad. 211.

(6) WolUm V. Gavin, 20 L. J. Q. B. 73.

(c) This provision is repealed as regards the Metropolis hy
32 & .33 Vict. c. 67, s. 77.

IHPBBA'riVE OB DIRECT! IKY. mi'

requisites were neglected; because a difiereut
oonstrootion would have led to iuconveniences
which the Legislature must be presumed not to
have intended (a). The Public Health Act, 1848,
in requiring that rates made under it should be
published like a poor rate, was also held directory
only; on the ground of the great inconvenience
which would result f'rim nuUiiying a rate whenever
any of the particulars and forms required were not
accurately given and followed (4). The latter Act,
indeed, omitted the nullifying words which the
former contained ; and the omission was considered
to show an intention that such au inconvenience
should not follow (c).

The Act which enacted that no copy of a bill
of sale should be filed in any Court unless the
original was produced to the o£Bcer duly stamped,
did not invalidate the registration if the bill was
not duly stamped when so produced. The object
of the enactment was to protect the revenue ; and
this .was thought sufficiently attained if the deed
was afterwards duly stamped, without going to
the extreme of holding the registration void {d).

(o) B. V. Fordham, 11 A. & E. 73. See Cole v. Greem, 13
L. J. C. P. 30.

(b) 11 & 12 Viot. c. 63 (repealed, 38 Je 39 Vict. c. 55, a. 313,
Sohed. V. pt. III.; ; Le Feume v. Miller, 2U L. J. M. C. 175.

(e) See sup. pp. 560-561. Comp. Literjmol Borough Bank v.
I'umer dr., aup. p. 649.

(d) 24 4e 25 Vict. c. 91. t>. 34 (repealed, 33 .St 34 Viot. c 99) ;

«68

WTBRPBKTATIOX or RTATUTM.

The provision of 7 Geo. IV. o. 67, which required
the Court to cause notice of the filing of an
insolvent's position to he given to the creditors,
was held to be merely a direction to the Court,
and oompUanoe with it not a condition precedent
to the validity of the discharge (a).

So, an Act (12 Geo. H. c. 29) which empowered
the Quarter SeRsions to appoint treasurers, " first
giving security to be accountable," was held
directory as regards this provision, and as not
afiecting the validity of the appointment, which
was held complete though no security was
given (/*).

It has been held that the neglect of mere
formal requisites in keeping the register of the
shareholders of a joint stock company, however
fatal for some purposes, is immaterial as regards
others.- Thus, the provision that the register
should be sealed, though essential to its being
producible in evidence, is immaterial as regards
makmg a person a shareholder, if there be in fact
a book honA fide intended to be a register. But
the neglect to nuo^ber and appropriate the shares

Ab to existing law, see

Bellamy v. Saull, 33 L. J. Q, B.
54 4 65 Vict. o. .33, s. 41.

(a) Repealed. S. L. R., 1783; Snd v. Oro/t. 5 Bing. N. 0.
68. So, as to sales of real estate (1 <fe 2 Viot. c. 110, s. 47),
Wright V. Maunder, 4 Beav. 612.

(6) B. V. Palle«m (1832), 38 B. B. 191 ; 2 L. J. K. B. 38.

JHPKBAnVK OB DIMMrroBV. ggj,

mepeotiou of creditors, and impoeing pe„Ltie!
on any of the company's officers who 'coSaen
them, are directory, so that they do notTrt
the vanaity Of unregistered mortgTgesV

shoTtlT "" "^"'^"^ P™^'^^^ *^'»* '" beer license
should be granted to any person who was not!
"r^«dent occupier" of the premises sought to

^uirr ' "/'" ^ P^*^''"^ "^ *h« license'biug
null and void; and it required, further, that th!
apphcant should produce to the licensng office
a cerhficate from the overseer of the parish th
he was such resident occupier; the latter pro
vision was considered to be only directoS Zd
a hoense obtained without the certificate Vd
The omission, from the later passage, of the
nullifying words which were appended to the

m W^^r^„^„jra,.r^l„ Co. y. Ua.Uf^ (1869) 31

V. ISrttuh a American Shoe Co. (1902). 71 L J nh fifiq • w •
B T Tj , A, „ ^' ""l ' ™»'J'- -Po'en' Bread Co

wli'f^, \^r- T- ^ ""''"'" '"™""'° - *-"^«' v."
IVood/ord, 13 L. J. Q. B. 93.

(t) 3 Jfc 4 Vict 0. 61, 9. 1.

, i

Mciocorr »esoiution test chaut

(ANSI ond ISO TEST CHA«T No. 2)

^

MSi

Hi

1^'^

&

ll£

mt^£

^ APPLIED IIVMGE Ini

^R '553 Eajt Moin SI'Ml

^g Rochester, Nam Yofk U609 USA

^S (716) 4B2 - OJOO - Phon*

^S (71G) 2S8-S989 ~Fa>

670

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES.

former was some indication of a difference of
intention ; besides, though it was reasonable that
a license to a person not properly qualified should
be void, it would hardly be reasonable that it
should be void, if the holder was duly qualified,
merely because the licensing officer had not been
satisfied of the qualification by the particular
means provided by the Act; which might have
been wrongfully withheld by the overseer (a). And
it is now provided by 10 Edw. VII. and 1 Geo. V.
c. 36, s. 2, that " a person shall not be disquahfied
for receiving a beer retailer's license by reason
only that thi premises in respect of which he
applies for a license are not a dwelling-house, or
that he is not the real resident owner and occupier
of the premises." . . . Again, a provision (A) that
convictions for sporting without a certificate
should be registered with the commissioners of
taxes was held directory only, so that the omission
to register it did not affect the validity of the
conviction (c).

The Public Health Act, 1848, in empoweiing
the Local Board of Health to enter into all con-
tracts necessary for carrying the Act into execu-
tion, contained two provisions which may be taken

(o) Tliompton v. Harvey (1859), 28 L. J. M. C. 163.
(6) 52 Geo. III. c. 93 (repealed, 32 i 33 Mat. a. 14, s. 39
which Bee).

(c) Maeoii v. D'lrker (1843 J, 1 C. it K. 100.

IMPERATIVE OR DIKECTORY.

671

, s. 39

as illustrating the distinction under consideration.
It enacted that contracts exceeding J;10 in value
should be sealed with the seal of the board ; that
they should contain certain particulars ; and that
"every contract so entered into shall be binding;
provided always . . . that before contracting for
the execution of any work, the board shall obtain
from the surveyor a written estimate of the pro-
bable expense of executing it and keeping it in
repair." The first of these requisites was decided
to be imperative, and a contract unsealed was
consequently held inoperative against the board
and the rates. The power to contract so as to
bind the rates could not have been exercised if
it had not been given by the Act; and, being
entirely the creature of the statute, it could not
be exercised in any other manner than that pre-
scribed by the statute (a). But the provision
which required an estimate was held to be merely
a direction or instruction for the guidance of the

(o) 11 & 12 Vict. 0. 63, 3. 85, repealed and re-enaoted in sub-
stance by 38 & 39 Vict. c. 65, ss. 173, 174 ; Freiid v. Dennett,
27 L. J. C. P. 314 ; Bunt v. Wimbledon Loc. Bd., 48 L. J. C. P.
207 ; Aahbury v. UieU, L. R. 7 H. L. 653 ; Eaton v. Banker, 7
Q. B. D. 529 ; Young v. Roi/al Leuminglon Spa (1883), 52
Ij. J. Q. B. 713 ; Tunbridge WelU Improvement Coiiimistionertt v.
Southborough Loc. Board (1888), 60 L. T. 172; Brooks v.
Torquay, 71 L. J. K. B. 109 ; Britith Luulated Wire Co. ii. Premt
V. D. C, [1895] 2 g. B. 163. Coiuy. Cole v. Green, 13
L. J. C. 1'. 30; Mdlisi v. Shirlei) Loc. Bd., 16 Q. B. D. 446.

1^

IM« J ;

672

INTBBPBKTATION OF STATUTES.

board, and not a condition precedent the per-
formance of which was essential to the validity
of the contract (a). It was remarked that in the
former case the party contracted with knew, or
had the means of knowing, what forms were
required by the Act, and could see to their
observance; while in the Matter, he had not, it
was said, the same facility for acertainiug whether
the board had consulted their surveyor. The non-
observance of the latter provision would, however
probably impose on the board the penalty of
having uo remedy against their constituents for
reimbursement (li).

It has been said that there is no such exact
division of sections in Acts of Parliament into
those that are directory and those that are impera-
tive as is ordinarily assumed to be a categorical
division which exhausts every possible class of
section. A section may be imperative as regards
the voluntary action of parties, but not so where
such events happen that its provision cannot be
attended to. The provision, therefore, of s. 42 (13)
of the Valuation (Metropolis) Act, 1869 (32 & 33

(a) Nmell v. Worcester (Mayor), 23 L. J. Ex. 139 ; Bouar v.
Mitchell, 19 L. J. Ex. 302.

(b) Per Parke B., Nowell v. Worcester, sup. Seo AVuf
Awjlian Hy. v. M. C. By., 21 L. J. C. P. 23 ; McGregor v. Deal
Jic My. Co., 22 L. J. Q. B. 69; Boyal British Uank v.
TnrqtMnd, 24 L. J. Q. B. 327 ; Nuijent v. Smith, 1 C. P. D. 423.

OBSKRVANOE EXCUSED, 073

Viet. c. 67), that the assessment sessions shall be
held after February Ist, but so that all appeals shall
be determined before March 31st, while imperatively
requiring that the Court shall do all in its power
to obey Its mandate, would not operate so as to
prevent a continuance of the sessions after March
30th, where, through necessity or default of the
Court Itself, whether culpable or not, the business
was not then concluded. Parties who have done
all that the statute requires of them are not to
lose their right of appeal because the final hour
was stmck on March 30th. The enactment must
be read, as all enactments are, subject to their not
being made absurd by matters which never could
have been within the calculation or consideration
of the Legislature (rt).

SECTION IV.— LEX NON COGIT AD IMPOSSIBILIA-CCILIRRT
LICET RENUNTIARE .TURI PRO SE INTRODUCTO.

Enactments which impose duties ou conditions
are, when these are not conditions precedent to
the exercise of a jurisdiction, subject to the maxim
that lex non coglt ad mfmsi/jilia aut Imtilia. They
are understood as dispensing with the performance
of what is prescribed, when performance is idle or
impossible (4).

; if. V. London Jus. and London C. C,

(a) 32 & 33 Viot. c. 67 ;
[1893] 2 Q. B. 476.
(h) As to performance, where the duty has not been unposed

43

111

III, ,i
1 I

674

INTERPBETATION OF STATDTE8.

Thug, where au Act provided thaj an appellant
shoald send notice to the respondent of his having
entered into a recognisance, in default of which
the appeal should not be allowed, it was held that
the death of the respondent before service was
not fatal to the appeal, but dispensed with the
service (a). In the same way, the provision of
20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, s. 2, which similarly makes
the transmission by the appellant, of a case stated
by justices to the Superior Courts, within three
days from receiving it, a condition precedent to
the hearing of the appeal (b), was held dispensed
with, when the Court was closed during the three
days ; since compliance was impossible {<;).

by superior authoriiy, but has been voluntarily assumed, see
Paradine v. Jane, Aleyn, 26, and the oases cited in Hall v.
Wright, 29 L. J. Q. B. 43. See also Taylor v. GaUwell, 32
L. J. Q. B. 164 ; BomI v. Firth, L. B. 4 C. P. 1 ; Af^by v.
Uyert, L. B. 1 C. P. 615 ; % Id. 651 ; Clifford v. WatU, L. B. 5
C. P. 577 ; Homell v. Coupland, 1 Q. B. D. 258 ; Nieholt v.
Martland, 2 Ex. D. 1 ; Jaecbt v. Cridit Lgonnait, 12 Q. B. D
589.

(o) B. V. LeiceiterMre, 19 L. J. M. C. 209. See also Brumfitt
V. Bdberit, sup. p. 169.

(6) Morgan v. Edwanli (1860), 29 L. J. M. C. 108 ; Woodhouae
V. Woods, 29 L. J. M. C. 149; Stone v. Dean, 27 L. J. Q. B.
319 ; Norria v. Carringtcn, 16 C. B. N. S. 10 ; Harrison, Exp., 2
De G. & J. 229. See, however, inf. pp. 683-684.

(c) Mayer v. Harding, L. B. 2 Q. B. 410. See B. v. Allan, 33
L. J. M. C. 98 ; B. v. Bhomsbury County Court Judge, 17 Q. B. D.
788. Soe also B. v. Lmdon Jxa. atul London C. C, sup. p. 673.

OBSERVANCE EXCUSKD.

675

In suoh oases, the provisiou or condition is dis-
pensed wi h, when compliance is iuopossible Z the
nature of things. It would seem to be sometime!
equaUy so where compliance was, though not Tm
possible m this sense, yet impracticabl!, wx^hout

the duty was thrown. An Act, for instance, which
made actual payment of the rent, as well as the
rentmg of a tenement, essential to the acquisi-
^onof a settlement, would probably be complied
with, ,f the rent was tendered, though it was not
accep ed (.). If the respondent in an appeal kept
out of the way to avoid service of the notice of
appeal or a. . events could not be found after
due diligence in searching for him, the service
required by the statute would probably be dis-
pensed with (A). So, if the appellant was entitled
to appeal, subject to the condition of giving
security for costs within a certain time, he would
be held to have compUed with the condition, if he

As to when notice of appeal to respondent's soUoitor satisfies
the Act, see Godman v. Crofhm, [1914] 3 K. B. 803. A technical
omission to serve justices, with notice of appeal, in time does
not necessarily oust jurisdiction, Simmonds v. miott, [1917] 2
KB. 894. As to what is such a determination by justices as
will justify an appeal, Oalen v. Auly, [1919] 2 K. B. 278.

(o) Per Bayley J., B. v. Ampthill, 2 B. Jlj C. 847.

(6) P«r Cur., Morgmt v. Edwarch, and per Crompton and
Hill JJ., Woodhouee v. Wood..mp. p. 674. See also Sgred v
CarriMera, 27 L. J. M. C. 273.

•

fi7<i

INTERPRETATION 0» BTATUTKB.

r

>'.

i^M

miLLlja

offered and was ready to complete the security
within the limited time, though it was, owing to
the act of the Court, or of the respondent, not
completed till long after («). Indeed, the Courts
will sometimes exercise a discretion in extending
time (when not going to the jurisdiction) where the
non-compliance arose from excusable mistake (A).

Where, however, the act or thing required by
the statute is a condition precedent to thejurindiciiim
of the tribunal, compliance cannot be dispensed
with ; and if it be impossible, the jurisdiction fails.
It would not be competent to a Court to dispense
with what the Legislature had made the indis-
pensable foundation of its jurisdiction. Thus, the
Act which enacts that justices, at the hearing of a
bastardy summons, " shall hear the evidence " of
the mother, and such other evidence as she may
adduce; and which authorises them to make an
affiliation order "if the mother's evidence be
corroborated in some material particular by other
testimony," makes the evidence of the mother so
essential to the jurisdiction that no order could be
made without it, although the woman died before
the hearing (c). But an appeal may be heard

(a) Walerioa v. Baker, L. H. 3 Q. B. 173. See also E. v
Anton, 19 L. J. M. C236.

(&) Oiuack V. i. & N. W. Bg. Co., [1891] 1 Q. B. 347.

(c) B. V. Armilage (1872), L. E. 7 Q. B. 773 ; 42 L. .J, M. C.
15. Comp. Dilton't Gate, 2 Salk, 490, sup. p. 370.

OBSKBVANCB KX<;USISU. ^77

although the mother be dead(«). So, under the
(repealed) County Courts Act, 1875, which em
powered a party to move the appeUate Court or a
judge at chambars for a new trial "within eidit
days after the decision," the time could not be ex-
tended by either Court or judge (/,). Under s. 13,
Admiralty Court Act, 1801(r), whichgave the Court
of Admiralty the same powers, when a vessel or
Its proceeds was under arrest, as the Court of
Chancery had under the Merchant Sliippiag Act,
18u4 (now Merchant Shipping Act, 1894)(,0, over
suits for limiting the liability of shipowners, no
jurisdiction could be exercised by the former
Court, when the ship was lost. The jurisdiction
of the Court depended on the ship, or the pro-
ceeds of its sale, being under arrest ; and the
shipowner could not give it jurisdiction by paying

(a) B. V. Leieettmhire JJ. (1850), 19 L. J. M. C. 209.

(6) 38 & 39 Viot. e. 50. As to present procedure on appeals,
see s. 120, County Courts Act, 1888. Brown v. Shav, (1876),
1 Ex. D. 425; Temant v. Bawlingi, i C. P. D. 133. See also
B. V. Salop, 6 Q. B. D. 669; Ahier v. Ahier, 10 P. D. 110;
Athdowu V. Curlh. 31 L. J. M. C. 216 ; Edu^ird, v. Boherii,
[1891] 1 Q. B. 302.

(e) 24 & 25 Viot. o. 10, s. 13.

(d) As to when the limitation does not apply, see ss. 502-509.
Asiatic Petroleum Co. v. Lemard's Carrying Co., [1914] 1 K. B.
419 ; but see Ingram and Boyle v. Servicen MarUiuiet due Treporl,
[1914] 1 K. B. 541, C. A. As to when a substituted authority
is liable for negligence, Tlie 0»car II., [1919] P. 171,

llll

678

INTEBPRETATION OF BTATUTEH.

into Conrt a Bnm eqnivalent to its value or pi
ceeds (a).

Another maxim which sanctions the non-obsc
vance of a statutory provision, is that, cttilll
licet renuntiare jurl pro /m infrodiicto. Every oi
has a right to waive, and to agree to waive tl
advantage of a law or rule made solely for tl
benefit and protection of the Individual, in h
private capacity {!>), and which may be dispense
with without infringing on any public right
public policy. Thus a person may agree to wai
the benefit of a Statute of Limitation (c). T)
trustees of a turnpike road may, in demising tl
tolls, waive tho provision of the Act which requir
that the demise shall be signed by the sureti
of the lessee ((2). A ^tLSsenget may waive tl
benefit of an enactment which entitles him
carry so many pounds of lu-^gage with him ; ai
he does so, it may be ad ad, by taking a tick
with the express conditiou that he shall car:
no luggage (e). The only person intendeJ to 1

(n) Jamei v. S. W. Ry. Co. (1872) L. B. 7 Ex. 287. Soo al
S. V. Bellon, 17 L. J. M. C. 70 ; R v. Shurmer, 17 Q. B. D. 3!

(()) McAllitier v. Soeheiter {Bp.), 5 C. P. D. 194.

(c) K I. Co. V. Paul, 7 Moo. P. C. 85 ; Lade v. Trill, 6 Ji
272, per Knight Bruce V.-C.

((/) Marlliam v. Stanfuril, 14 C. B. N. S. 376.

(«) fl«m.ey V. N. E. liy. Co. (1863), 14 C. B N. S. 641 ;
fj. J. C. P. 244 ; discussed and distinguished in MeremUih' J)ii
V. (lladsione (1868), L. E. 3 Ex. 233 ; 37 h. J. Ex. 180.

WHKV ..WKBVANCK MAY BK «UVF.,, „;„

boneflted by g„oh un enactment in. obviously tl.n
passenger hims." an.l no conside;ation of ti.b
pohoy ,s involved .n it (.). A statute aulSl"
a tradmg company to levy tolls within a specS
ma«n.„m does not bind them to enact Tn'ot

such law, he cannot recall the concession, after !t
has been acted on, and in.ist on the right which
the rule gave him. A tenant, for instance, wh se
goods had been distrained, might waive the enac^
ment (s. 1. 2 WiU. & Mary. c. 5), which reqSl
an appraisement before the sale of the goods ; and
he could not. after the sale, be heard to complain
that no appraisement had been made (,,) Where
a question between two railway companies has
been tried on the merits without either party
raising the pomt that the matter ought to be
referred to arbitration, it is too late on the hearing

(a) NercanUUBani v. GU.i.,one. .up. p. 678 ; per Willes J.
I <*^^7"{°"'*«^^"' <'"■ V. a,, Sleanboa, Co. (1860), 30
329 'rthnmplon Corp. v. Elle,, (1904), 70 L. J. K. B.

U A. & E. 777. By ,. 5, 51 & 52 Vict. o. 21, appraisement
before sale ,8 now unnecesaary, exoept where the tenant or
owner of the goods, requires it by writing.

Willi

G&)

INTKBl'BICTAVIUN or BTA'rUTKM.

of un appeal to insist that the case ihoold be so
referred (a).

The regulations oouceruing the procedure and
practice of Civil Courts may in the same way,
when not going to the jurisdiction, be waived by
those of whose protection they were intended.
Thus, s. 14, 13 & U Vict. c. 61 (*), which gave an
appeal from a County Court, provided the appel-
lant, within ten days, gave notice of appeal and
security for costs ; and after directing that the
appeal should be in the form of a case, enacted
that no judgment of a County Court Judge should
be removed into any other Court, except in the
manner and under the provisions above men-
tioned ; it was held that the want of due notice
and security might be waived. The provision was
mtended for the benefit of the respondent, and
was not a matter of public concern (c). So, a
defendant in an action in a County Court which
has jurisdiction over the case subject to leave

(a) /.. a •» D. B). V. S. E. i?y., 40 Ch. D. 100.

(6) Sea County Courts Aot, 1888, a. 120.

(o) Park Gate Iron Co. v. Coate, (1870;, L. R 0 C P 634 •
WaUrton V. fi„i.r (1868), 37 L. J. Q. B. 65. Bee also B. v'
I^ong, 1 Q. B. 740; Tuerman v. SiuUh, 25 L. J. Q B 369-
Freeman v. Bead, 30 L. J. M. C. 123 ; Palmer v. Metrop. B) Co '
31 L. J. Q. B. 259 ; Be,je,U V. S. Hlore,, Be, 8 Ch. D 75*
Application to the County Court Judge ^k, take a note of point
of law raised is not a condition precedent to appeal, Abraham, v
,l)!mmoel, [1914] W. N. 449.

•M

WHKN OMKBVASCE MAY Ufc wa.VKU m

beiug given may waive want of leave;,): aud

JuBtioe. .f the subject matter be within th^r
jun8d.ct.on. may waive any irregularity in the
summons, or indeed dispense with the summous
^together; and he does so in such ca.es no,
mdeed by appearing u^erely (i). but by appearing
and entenng on the case on its merits Thf
tribunal having jurisdiction over the matter, he
would not be aUowed to take his chance of pre!
vaJmg on the merits, and to reserve his objections
l\t2r ^'^""'^""yi^^gularity (<,.). So where
a atute requires justices to make known to a
party his nght to appeal, and the st.ps necessary
to carry out this right, such as giving notice of
appeal and entering into recognisances, the party
may waive this provision {d).
But when public policy requires the servanoe

(a) Jf«r« V. Ga„jce (1890), 25 Q. B. D. 244 ; 69 L. J. Q. B.
m. And ^ Aiders,,. V. Palli.er (1901), 70 L. J. K. B. 935

W B. V. Carmrvon. 5 Nev. & M. 3G4; fi v Shau, -4.
L. J. M. C. 169; B. v. HugU.. 4 g. B. D 614 Lt ti
V. WM,, 26 Q. B. D. 24U '^'^ ^™"

n'- fj' fr'- ^ *'""'• ^''' *• '■ •'»*'"<"'• 1 St™. 261-
n^^t\T^-n'''' ^-•^'"-.l East, 639; H.^.Ber,
(18o9), 28 L. J. M. 0. 86; B. y. Fletcher. L. B. 1 C C B 320
if. V S»,Y* Id. HO; B. V. Wid,t«p, L. B. 2 C. C. R. 3; £oito.'
V. Boltm, 2 Oh. D. 217.

(d) iJ^ V. YorUhir., 3 M. i. S. 493 ; and does «, by declaring
that he does not intend to appeal.

682

INTERFBETATIUK UF HTATUTEB.

of the provision, it cannot be waived by an
individual. Privaiomm conventio juri pMico nun
derogat{a). Private compacts are not permitted
either to render that sufficient, between them-
selves, which the law declares essentially insuffi-
cient ; or to impair the integrity of a rule necessary
for the common welfare; such, for instance, as
the enactment which requires the attestation of
Wills (i). Thus, the invalidity of the service of
a writ on a Sunday cannot be waived ; for it is
a matter of public policy that no such proceeding
should take place on Sunday (c). It has been held
that the maxim volenti non Jit injuria is not to be
apphed to cases of injury occasioned by the breach
of a statutory duty imposed for the benefit of
others as well as the injured party (rf). On the
same principle a public body, such as a local
authority, which is authorised to make by-laws,
cannot dispense with them in particular cases, the
ly-laws not being for its benefit but for that of the
public (e). It is said to be a general understanding

(o) Dig. 50, 17, 45.

(b) Per WHson J., Habergham v. Tivcenl (1793), 2 Ves. jun.
227 ; Croker v. Hertford (Marquis) (1844), 4 Moore P. C. 339,
366. See New York Civ. Code, Art. 1968, n. 2.

(c) Taylor v. PhilUiD, 6 E. R. 575.

(d) Bnddelnj v. Earl Granville, 19 Q. B. D. 423 ; Thoma» v.
Qvarlermaine, 18 Q. B. D. 685.

(e) MrlnloHh, Ri; 61 L. .T. Q. B. 164. S 38, liowjver, ({. K B,/.

WHEN OB8EKVAX0E MAIT NOT „K WA.VBD. 683

nothing ; at least, m the course of his trial (a) Tn
onnainal matters, a person cannot wait" wiat the
aw requires (*). Where, upon a trial LrfeW
the jnry was discharged, and, at the new trS'

TZl^' f''""^' ^"^' ''«-« --. had thel;
evidence read over to them by the judge from
h- notes. a.d the counsel for the irown t"

andTrZ" ^^ "'T"'^ ""^'^ *° — i-
coursr f '^*°''".' *^''"' ^* ^«^ ''^J'J tl"'t this
the co„/ r"'''"'^ '"•^*^'^ *^^ *™^' ''"d that
lot 3!^"* °^''«'«"7c-ee of the prisoner did
criLr . f .'"-^g^l^tyi.). The object of a
cnmmal tnal, It was observed, was the adminis-

hano! f ■'" ' ^ " "°"''^ «^ ^'«« fro-" doubt or
of it c!„t "^""IT^' ^« human administration
of It can be ; not the interests of either party '
Consent cannot give jurisdiction (d) ■ and there-

L.?! 5^ P^eaT '•• ^"^* ""'" ^™'' ^°- ^- ^'- (^^^o).

o2 , ^..Pon<^k CB^and Alderson B., «„,„„, ,. 7„;,i,;Et
b51. Comp. K. V. nornJffl, 8 C. & P 57';. » .• m
Om) (The Veromea Case, 07 J P //v '/■;/°""'"
,J r ^*- ®"= ^'^"' '^'^J'- 18 Ch. D. 488.

J J)o^^I. N. s,. 566 ; E;rp. BnhMmu, 44 T. J Bank OT ■ 7, 2-
V. Beau,non,, U L. J. fix. 301. ' '^"'*'""

fW

681

INTEBPKBTATION OF STATUTES.

' ((•

ki

J

fore any statutory objection which goes to the
jurisdiction does not admit of waiver. Thus, s. 33,
Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, which empowers
either party, after the determination of an infor-
mation by justices to apply to the Court to state
a case, requires that the application should be
made to all who heard it, and the objection that
the case was stated by some only of them cannot
be waived, because it goes to the jurisdiction («> ;
and the provision of 20 & 21 Vict. o. 43, s. 2, which
requires the appellant from a decision of justices
to transmit the case in three days to the Court
of Appeal, could not be waived by the respondent,
on the ground either that it went to the jurisdic-
tion, or that it related to a criminal case, or that
the justices had an interest in the observance of
the rule (A). So, a provision that a summons
shall be served within a certain time goes to the
jurisdiction, and must be observed (c).

(a) 42 & 43 Vict. o. 49; Wealmore v. Paine, [1891] 1 Q. B.
482. This provision does not apply to an adjudication by
justices on a matter within s. 164 of the Merchant Shipping
Act, 1894, Well) v. McSherry, [1914] 1 K. B. 616.

(6) Morgan v. Edwards (1860), 29 L. J. M. C. 108 ; Peacock
V. B., 27 L. J. C. P. 224. Comp. Peter, v. Sheehan, 12 L. J. Ex.
177 ; Great N. Committee v. Inett, 2 Q. B. D. 284 ; B. v. Unghm,
4 Q. B. D. 614. See the remarks in Park Gate Iron Co. v.
Goatet, L. E. 5 C. P. 634, dubit. Keating J. ; Bennett v. Atkint,
4 C. P. D. 80.
('■) Dixon V. Wells, 25 Q. B. D. 249.

CONTBAOra MADE VON-PERPORMABLK. 68S

It may be added here, that a person is some-
hmsB estopped by his own conduct from avaS
himself of legislative provisions intended for hk
benefit. For instance, a prisoner for debt, r pr
sentmg a person to be an attorney, to atteT«
warrant of attorney, who did not belong to L

impeach the warrant on the ground of inadequate
attestation («) ; and the grantee of an annSy ot

Ir u u*^ " '''' °^ ^°'°"'°g tJ^^ deed of

grant would beestopped from taking any advantage
from his neglect to enrol it (6).

Where a« Act of Parliament compels a breach
of a private contract, the contract is impliedly
repealed by the Act, so far as the latter extends
or the breach is excused, or is considered as not
falling withm the contract (c). The intervention
of the Legislature, in altering the situation of
the oontractmg parties, is analogous to a con-
vulsion of nature, against which they, no doubt
may provide; but if they have not provided it

Cox V. Cannon, i Bing.

(o) Jeyes v. Booth, 1 B. & P. 97-
N. C. 453.

(6) miton V. Ca„,r»,«, 18 L. J. Ex. 356; T«rner v. Brovme
15 h. J. C. P. 223. See also Re Cannon, 20 Q. B. D. 690 • Mus'
t/rove, Exp., 3 M. D. & D. 386, and Oreener, Erp., 15 Ch. D 457

(c) Per Cur., Brew,ter v. Kilohell or KUchin (1697) 1 Salk
198; discussed and applied, A,«,terb(rry y. Oldhau, Corn (ISSSt'
29 Ch. D. 750, C. A. ^'^.•t'oas),

"«» INTKBPBBTATION O" BTATOTES.

is generally to be considered as excepted out of
the contract (a). Thus, where land was leased to
certain persons, who covenanted to build a work-
house on it, and not to use the house or land
for any other purpose than the support of the
poor of the parish ; and thn Poor Law Commis-
sioners, under 4 & 5 Will. IV. 0. 76, incorporated
the parish in a Union, and removed the paupers
to the Union workhouse, whereupon the house
was shut up and the land was let at a rack rent
which was applied in aid of the rates ; it was held,
that the covenant had not been broken, or, alter-
natively, that the breach was excused by legislative
compulsion (h).

And a like rule applies where urgent national
stress or danger precludes a contractor from carry-
ing out certain clauses of contractual obligations (c).

If a man covenants not to do a thing which
was unlawful at the time of the covenant, and an
Act rubsequently makes it lawful only, but not
imperative, to do it ; the covenant is unaffected
by the Act (d). Where a lessee covenanted, for
himself and his " assigns," that he would not buUd
on the demised premises ; and he was afterwards

(o) Per Pollock C.B., Beruick v. Omald, 3 E. & B. 678
(6) Doe V. Bugeley (1844). 13 L. J. M. C. 137. SeeDevomhire
(Duke) V. Sarrow Steel Co., 2 Q. B. D. 286
(c) 7 & 8 Geo. V. c. 25.
(</) Per Cur., Breiceter v. Kitcheli or Kitchin, 1 Salk. 198.

CONTRACTS MADE NON-PBRFOBMABLK. m

oompeUed, under aa Act of ParUament, to sell the
land to a railway company, who built on it ; it was
held that the company was not an " assign " within
the meaning of the covenant. The Legislature
It was considered, had, in compelling the sale'
created a kind of assign not contemplated by
either lessor or lessee when the contract was
entered into; and so, the lessee could not justly
be held responsible for the acts of such an assign
It was not reasonable to impute to the Legislature
the intention that he should remain liable for
the non-performance of that which it had, itself
prevented him from performing (a). ' '

(a) Sails V. De Crcpigm, (1869), L. B. i Q. B. 180. See
also Wadhamv i-othmtler-Oeneral, id h. i Q B 310- Br
.^Undon (Man^l 30 L. J. 0. P. 225 ; Na^ngi^ v. CoiungC,
48 L. J. Ch. 226. But see Lon,j Saton Secreation Oround^
Go. V. Mtdland By. (1902), 71 L. J. K. B. 837.

iil

m

CHAPTER XIII.

8KCTI0N I.— CONTRACTS CONNECTED WITH ILLEGAL ACT!

It is, and has always been, an established rul,
of law that no action can be maintained on i
contract made for or about any matter or thinj
which is prohibited and made unlawful by statute
Such a contract is void (a). What has beei
done in contravention of an Act of Parliameni
cannot be made the subject of an action (6). Thus
as the Metropolitan Building Act, 1855, 18 & K
Vict. 0. 122 (c), prohibits the use of combustible
materials for building walls in the metropolis, the
builder of any such walls could not maintain an
action for the price of erecting them (d). As s 14
55 Geo. III. e. 194, forbids medica' practice by
unqualified persons, a contract mude between

(o) BarOelt v. Vinor, Garth. 252; per Bowen L J, Melli,. v
Shirlm,. 16 Q. B. D. 453.

(6) Per Lord Ellenborongh, Langton v. Buyhe,, 1 M. & S 593

(») Bepealed by 57 & 58 Vict. o. ccxiii., s. 215. Sohed. 4
which Act see. * '

(d) SUven, V. Go«rle,j (1059), 29 L. J. C. P. 1. Beoognised
but distinguished, Harris v. de Pinm (1886), 33 Oh. Div 238
p. 248.

section, it does not .!nf °"'^ "^^^^ **»«

but merely emnlovft,! « j • ""» iumseit practise,
do so, an/S°Se apS^T?' "^^^*''"* *°

occupi^fratirriirtnor r ''-

was held that no settlemlnt Ts ISl '■
under an indenturp „f !! ^ ^"^ ''^ ''®^"<'«

t'-ary to thJstroSn [.r ""''^ ""'^ ^"'^-

an!?t"th?:!f ^ " '"P""^ ^°' •'-"g 0' omitting
act, the act or omission is thereby prohibited

^^W i><.«.. V. if„*«,«, (1885). 29 Ch. D. 596; 54 L. J. Ch.
W P'""-macmtical Society y.]>^a,h (1911) 80 L J Jf R ^,«

c') 10 Geo. u. : ?a f j;i ?T 8"r 'T; ''• ^- <^'

i.s.

44

690

INTEBPBETATION OP STATUTKB.

and made unlawful ; for a statute would not infli
a penalty on what was lawful (a). Consequent
when the thing in respect of which the penal
is imposed is a contract, it is illegal and vo:
In the case cited above, the Act had declar
that it should not be lawful to take the apprentic
and imposed a penalty for doing so (b) ; and
another, where service under an indenture
apprenticeship as a sweep was similarly treate
the statute had not only declared the apprentic
ship "void," but imposed a penalty on t.
master (c). Sec. 24 of the repealed 7 & 8 Vic
c. 110, in enacting that every promoter of a joi
stock company concerned in making contracts (
its behalf before its provisional registration, shou
be subject to a penalty of j625, impliedly render
every such contract illegal and therefore void (c
So, 26 & 26 Vict. c. 89; in enacting that no coi
pany of more than 20 persons should be formed f
carrying on any business for gain unless it we
registered, rendered illegal and void all contrac

(o) Per Lord Holt, BartleU v. Vimr, sup, p. 688 ; per Lc
Hathorley, C-vh dc. By. Co., Be, h. K. 4 Ch. 748.
(6) B. V. Gravesend, sup. p. 689.

(c) 28 Geo. III. c. 48 (repealed S. L. E., 1871) ; H. v. ;/ij
well, 8 B. & G. 466.

(d) Bull V. Chapman, 22 L. J. Ex. 257. See also Ahbotl
Sogers, 24 L. J. C. P. 158. As to restrictions on commcnci
business under Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1008, sec s.
of that Act.

- J,...

! ; per Lord

for carrying on its business if iu

not registered (a). The aM i. f^^'Pony was

penalty on oertain classes „r "^ ''^^^"'^ -»

their ordinary Xrn „/'?°''' ^°' «-^«'°"i««

jeots the offendertoVe „?"f;^^^ °"^^ ""b

every contract Jade in the ^' **"' '"^'^'^''''^^^

prohibited exercise so fij°r "'.'^'^^ «"'=''

offender, and of any pe-^l 'i ' ,"^^' °^ *»>«

'-te^ if privy to^ ^.1' ^ in '^ ^""^
concerned (A). ^ " 'UegnJ, are

Sec 46 Hirhway Act, 1835 (3 * 6 Will TV

<-• SO), ,n imposing a penalty of £10 „ ^•

surveyor who had any sharT in . " '°'"^

supplying work or materil „, . "?^'' ^°'

aiy of his highwavT wT . i °"' ^^^°'^' fo'
„f4 • .o""^*y*'. Without the wriffon i;

of two justices, was equally fatfJ 1 v '"'^

anypayment forsuch suppLsor s ° 7?"'""*
•50, Merchant ShippingTt ".rr"'' 1" ^^''•
Merchant Shipping Act m'JJu^'''^'^' '• ^^'
the certificate of a sht ! ^' •'?''^ '"""'"'^ *'"'*

onlyinrelationtVeXXt^ tl^' .'^ ''"'

""posed a penalty on anyTet; i "'" ""^

' ^ P^"°"' 1" possession of

Hammond. 2 Q. B. D. 22S • «„ ^ ' ''™»"W» v.

i- the case of Bants the numtTo/" •"' " * ^' »■ «6«-
10- See s. I m Com7 ,^ P"'^'" " ""^ ™duoed to

33y «• 514, BU«>o,nc v. ,ra/;„„, (I824), 3? B. B.

(c) Barton v. i..-^^,,, (i87^^_ ^ ^^ ^^ ^ ^ ^^

602

INTKKPRKTATION OF STATUTCB.

it, who refased to give it up to the penon entitled
to itB custody for the purposes of navigatiou,
impliedly prohibited its use for any other purpose';
and rendered a pledge of it illegal and void, and
giving no right to detain it even against the
pledgor, if the right of possession and property
had vested in him (a).

Further, any contract connected with or grow-
ing out of an act which is illegal is also invalid.
Thus, a contract to dance at a theatre not duly
licensed cannot be enforced by action (6). It being
unlawful for any agent at an election, except
the expense agent, to make any payments on
behalf of a candidate, even for current expenses,
a sub-agent who made any such payments could
not, for this reason, recover the amount from his
principal (c). So, a contract to make bets (which
are, by 8 & 9 Vict c. 109, irrecoverable) cannot
be enforced (rf). It is a contract to make void
contracts. Bat as a betting contract is void only
and not illegal, when a bet has been received by
an agent the principal may recover it from him (c),

(a) WiUt V. Oraw/ord, 30 h. J. Q. B. 319.

(b) GaUUi ,v. Lahorit, 3 B. B. 581. See also De Be,j«!t v.
Mmitead, 38 B. E. 406 ; Lety v TafM, 8 A. Jt E. 129; Miotl v
Sichardton, L. B. 5 C. P. 744.

(c) 26 & 27 Viot. 0. 29 (repealed and re-enaoted, 46 &. 17
Vict. 0. 51, 8. 28) ; Parker, Be, 52 Ij._J. Ch. 159.

(d) Cohen v. Killell, 58 L. J. Q. B.'241.

(e) Bridget v. Smage, 54 L. J. y. B. 464. See, however,

rovTBArrg foNVReruD with iii«..

WITH ILI.ROAI. ACTH fiflS

Ai 89 it 40 Geo TTf „ on / i

the better n^anifln^V: ^^'S^^"'"* ^-
a pawnbroker was carried In T ""•"" "'

carried it on should Z. i," ^'^ P"''"" ^''°
over the shon 1 . ^^ "'""" '" f"* P-'i'^ted

that busbe?s' ^LhTnT' J" "^ ""'"^''^'"-^ -
the .am o one of tC J " '"P"'"""'' '*""
painted np;:a;i/i^S^^^^ 1^ ""* S
be an agreement tn ]»f • ^ '" ■'^°" ^° ^°"W

the oCT b rhri*?,r'""- ^^"'

liqnors there withont a li ense^ r"*""""
as a hrof li»i / 1\ \ "cense (/■), or to use it

a brothel (</), or to be used by a "kent"
woman for the nnmrso „f • • , P

paramour (.). ^^ "^ '""'^'^« ^'^ °»«
Where an Act provided that before a ship

L- J. Q. B. 30 /«» „ ir 1 ' ™'"" '• ^««w. 63

^a/ory v. Majtr, H. 14S. ^- J. K. B. 708, and

(a) Bepaaled and replaced, 35 A 36 Viot o 98 wh,,.). k , o
requires that the Dame, nf .ii ' '"'^'' ""y »• ^^

(t) ^r^<r«.ff V. le^ (1834), 41 R. R. lo ; 3 L. J. Ch 101 ■
Warner v. Arnulrong, 3 U. & K 4'5- fl. j L '

: !;.^!^ ' *^" ^- ^'«' 1 Macq. H. L. C. 392
(.1) Sitchte V. Smitt, 18 L. J C P 9

L.^cttl:'^""*''"'"'^'''^"'^'"'^ *""■'*- "'^■■".35
(«) Pr/SZ/ v. Wright, 80 L. J. K. B. 254.

6M

INTERPRBTATtdlf or STATUTIM.

n

sailed, the matter ahonld obtain the olearit:
officer's certifioate that the whole cargo was belo
deck, and forbade hiin, under a penalty, to sa
without the certificate or to place any cargo o
deck; a voyage in contravention of these pr(
visions would be illegal, and a policy of insurano
on the cargo eflfeoted by its owner, who was priv
to the transaction, void (a).

Where a statute prohibited brewers from nsin
any ingredients but malt and hops iu brewin
beer, it was held that a druggist who sold drug
to a brewer with the knowledge that they wei
to be used in making beer, contrary to the Act
and under circumstances which m.Je him
participator in the illegal transaction, could nc
reoovtr the price of the drugs (A).

But mere knowledge of the purposed illegalit}

(n) See the two oasM of Oniard v. Hfile (1858), 2KS[E. ]
»nd E. B. Ss E. 670; Wilion v. Banlin, L. B. 1 Q. B. 162
Dudgeon v. "embroke (1874), L. B. 9 Q. B. 881 ; Weii Indi
Tele. Co. V. Horn d Cohnial Marine IntHranrs Co. (1896) 6
L. J. Q. B. 616.

(b) See H<Jman v. Johjuox, 1 Cowp. 341 ; Abbott v. Bogeri
34 L. J. 0. P. 1S8 ; Langton v. Hughe, (1855), 14 K. B. 531
Hotigiou V. Temple, Id. 738; Pamlon v. Po^.m,, 9 East, 408
Gmlighl Co. V. Tumer, 54 E. E. 808. See also fSeherv. Bridge.
23 L. J. Q. B. 276; Oeere v. Jlfore, S3 L. J. Ex. 50; Clay v,
Bny, 17 C. B. N. S. 188 ; jffolfti v. Heming, 34 L. J. C. V. 117
Beeelon V. Beeiton, ' Ex. D. 13 ; Srooitr v. Wood, 5 B. 4 Ad
1062.

OOKTBACW 0OVNK.r.„n W,T„ ,L..r.OAUTV. «„6

Without actual participation or privitv in if ™ u
not affect the coutract. ThuJ a fal "o ' Zi
ma foreign country, with the knowledge'2
the purchaser intended to smaffol« ..
England, but without any p^tioHn t
transaction, would not be invalid (a)

The question has frequently arisen, when an Act
prescnbes regulations. forn,s, or otl er attendl
circumstances, more or le.s immediateroo,°
aected with contracts, either with or witlZt
ponalt^s or non-compliance, whether a co^ac
entered mto m disregard of any of then is thereby
prob zted and so illegal, or whether the ob^ct
of the Act ,s not sufficiently attained by the
|mp,^it,on of the penalty ; and the chief test for
Its decision seems to be whether the provisions
have or have not. some object of gar, 'l poUcy
which requires that the ooutract shodd be
mvahdated.

Thus it has been held that enactments which
required, under penalties, that aU bricks made
for sale should be of at least certain specified
dimensions (4); or that persons who sold corn
except by certain measures, should be liable to'

ullnll; ft' "■ ^'"""'' ' «• «• "S- See HoU, y
utmmg, 34 L. J. C. P. 117.

(b) r.av) V. ffw/Mn, 10 R. B. 613.

ISTKBPnETATION OF STATDTE8,

a penalty (a) ; or that vendors of coals shonl
under a penalty, deliver, with the coals sold,
ticket setting forth their weight and the numb(
of sacks in which they are contained (A) ; or thi
farmers and others should sell butter in firkii
of a certain size, branded with their own and tl
makers' names (e) ; prohibited all contracts ma(
in disregard of such provisions, and made the
void, so that no action could be maintained I
the price of the goods sold. On the same grouu
where printers were required to affix their nam
to the books which they printed, it was held th
a printer could not maintain an action for h
work and materials in printing a book in whi(
he had omitted to comply with this statutory pr
vision (d). The policy of these Acts was to preve;
all such dealings ; and it would have been in
perfectly attained, if the sellers had been mere!
subjected to a penalty, while the purchase
remained liable to be sued.

The same stringent effect has been given
enactments which imposed, under a penalty, reg
lations relating to personal qualification. Thi

(o) Tgton V. Tktmat, MoCl. & Yo. 119.
(!>) Little V. PooU, 9 B. & C. 192 ; Cundell v. Dawim,
L. J. C. P. 311.

(c) Fonter v. Taylor, 39 R. B. 698.

(d) Betuhy v. Bignold, 24 B. B. 401. See also Stephem
DiMmm, 2C.& 3. 209.

<:o>rTKAcr8 connwikd with illeoality. m
an Act which imposed a penalty on an unqualified
person who drew conveyances for reward, would
mvaJadate any contract with him for such a pur-
pose (a). So, a local Act which imposed penalties
on persons for acting as brokers in the City of
London, who had not been admitted and paid
certain fees for the benefit of the City (inasmuch
as Its object was, not the enrichment of the citizens
of London, but the protection of the public by pre-
venting improper persons from acting as brokers)
was held to invalidate the dealings of an unqualfied
broker, so far as to prevent him from recover-
ing payment for his services in that capacity (6)
But It would not afi-ect his right to recover
from his employer money paid on his behalf
to complete the irregular purchase; for this
was a transaction Tistinct from his character of
broker (c). It has been held that an enact-
ment, which provided that no person interested
m a contract with a company should be capable
of being a director, and that if a director of
a company were concerned in any contract

(o) 44 Geo. III. c. 98, s. 14; Tylar v. Croahnd Gm Co.
(1854), 23 L. J. Ex.254.

(i) 6 Anne, c. 16, s. 4 (2), altered as to amount of penalty by
57 Geo. III. 0. 60; Cojte v. Bowlands (1836), 6 L. J. Ex. 63.
Obaervations appUed, Melliu v. Sliirley Local Board (1885) 55
li. J. Q. B. 143.

(c) SmiH V. Li«do, 27 L. J. 0. P. 196, 335. Gom,,. Steel v.
ffen/ey, 1 C. & P. 574 ; Latham v. Hyde, 1 0. i M. 128.

* 4

698

INTEEPUETATION OF STATUTBa

with the company, he should oease to be a
director, did uot, at law, invalidate such a
contract (a); probably, in equity the contract
would be void (A). If, however, the company or the
directors, after full disclosure of the interest of the
contracting directors, chose to affirm the contract
it would probably be biudiug on the company
even in equity (c).

But where the object of the Act is sufficiently
attained without giving the prohibition so stringent
an effect, and where it is also collateral to or inde-
pendent of the contract, the statute is understood
as not affecting the validity of the contract.

Thus it has been held by the House of Lords
that the provision of s. 43, Companies Act, 186-.',
which imposed a penalty of f SO upon every officer
of a limited company who knowingly and wilfully
authorised or permitted the non-registration of
mortgages, or charges specificaUy affecting the
property of a company, was not to be construed as
also invalidating debentures issued to a director,
because he had omitted to register them (rf).

(o) Foster v. Oxford die. By. Co. (1853), 22 L. J. C. P. 9D,
Comp. Barton v. Port Jackson Co., 17 Barbour, New York E
397.

(h) Aberdeen By. Co. v. Blaikie (1854), 1 Maoq. H. L C. 461.

(c) Mttrratj v. Epmm Local Board (1896), 66 L. J. Ch 107
at p. 109.

(d) 25 & 26 Vict. 0. 89, s. 43, repealed, s. 100 (2), Companies
(Consolidation) Act, 1908 ; Wright v. Borlon, 12 App. Cas. 371.

retail, or even whoWle!!' l^' '"^'^ ^P'^'s by
of the distiUely Z ; •''5'''*"''^'^°'^aes

'•censed; it was held that thl ^^^'3^Pe«on
««ense, of the name and\J /'"f""'' ''^ ^''^
five partners in a Zil^ td ,h Tr' '""^
«pmts by him. did notTffeef tht T'^"^ °'
to prevent the partnership from rl '■ '" ''
P"oe («). So, the provisions oZ TTT' '^'
po«ed penalties on every IXTh . 7'"' ™-
o-^ted to paint his n'ame o'e "th^e ! "'°
of his premises, or who dealt ^11 ,, "'*"''"

a license, were understood 1^0??.""^
validity of a contract by a tol. ^""''^^ '^'

neglected to comply witi them T """^ ""''
fiscal regulations, the breachTf J 7 ^''' '""'^
neoted with the contert th t ""^ ""°°"-
protect the revenue TnT tht " '"' "" *°
attained by the enf;rcemenf „f T '"""P'^'^'y
On the same ground 117,?. u P^'^'^lt^ (*)•
omission of a broW lllttT,''' ''^* *'^^
--Pe. contract note^in tpret^^frr o^

Q- B. lis. ^^^ ■ ^"''"9 V. ifarn-,, 18 L. J.

(*) Smith V. Jf«„J<«„, ;^g L. J. B^ j^g

700

tVTKRPBETATIOJ* OF STATUTES. •

stock on the Stock Exchange, as required I
s. 17 (1), Revenue Act, 1888, though subjectii
the former to a penalty of f 20 does not prevei
him from recovering from the latter his con
mission on such sale (a).

" 39 & 40 Geo. III. c. 99 (A), already referred 1
(p. 693), affords an illustration of the two classes (
cases. It required a pawnbroker to paint h
name and business over his door : and it ah
required that before he made any advance on
pledge, he should make certain innuiries of tL
pledger as to his name, abode, and i^ nditio^i i
life, and should enter the results of tliem in hi
books and on the duplicate. A breach of Sb
former provision would not affect the validit
of a pledge ; but a breach of the latter would d
so, for they are directly and immediately cor
nected with the contract (c), and generally
contract entered into in contravention of
statutory duty, whether the prohibition is expree
or is implied from the imposition of a penalty, wi

(a) 51 & 53 Viot. c. 8, repealed, 54 & 55 Vict. c. 39, s. 13!
for re-imposition of duty, see as. 53-53 ; Learogd v. Braetei
[1894] 1 Q. B. 114. For definition of " Contract note," see s. 7
(3), Finance (1909-10) Act, 1910.

(6) Eepoaled, 35 & 36 Vict. o. 93, e. 4.

(c) Ferffugaon v. Norman (1838), 50 E. E. 613. See als
Vidorian Daijletford Syndicate, Ltd. v. Doti, [1905] 2 CI
624.

WHKTHEB WHOLE OB PART OF CONTRACT 18 VOn,. 701

not support au action («). And Afm-tiar! this is the
case where a statute with the view of affording
protection to the public imposes a penalty for
doing some particular act (6). The object of the
Legislature by imposing such regulations, being to
guard agaanst abuses, and this object would be
but imperfectly attained if the contract were held
good.

It was once considered a rigid rule that when
the bad part of a contract was made illegal or
void by statute, the whole instrument was Lvali-
dated; while, if the invalid part was void at
common law, the remainder of the instrument
was valid; a statute being, it was said, strict law
while the common law divided according to
common reason («); or again, the former like a
yrant making aU void; the latter, like a nursing
father maJung void only the part where the fault
18, but preserving the rest(rf). But this is not
the true test. The question whether the whole
instrument, or only the invalid part is void
depends on the more rational ground whether the

(a) C«.nddl V. Damon (1847), 17 L. J. C. P. 311; For.ter v
Taylor (1834), 3 B. & Adol. 887.
(6) D'AUax V. Jones (1854), 26 L. J. Ex. 79.
(c) Norton v. Simmes, Hob. 12.
(rf) Maleverer v. lle,hha«, 1 Mod, 35; MoM v Middklon,

7U8 INTEBPBETATION OF STATUTEa

vitiated part be severable from the rest, or r jt.
If the one cannot be severed from the other part,
the whole is void ; but if it be severable, whether
the illegality was created by statute or by the
common law, the bad part may be rejected, and
the good retained (a). Thus, though some of the
rules of a Trade Union may be illegal and void,
yet it does not foUow that the whole of the rules
are unenforceable (6). If a deed was made on a
consideration, part of which was illegal, the
whole instrument would be void, for every part
of it would be affected by the illegal considera-
tion (c) ; and a contract of which the considera-
tion is in any part iUegal cannot be enforced.
But it would be otherwise if only some of the
promises which constituted the consideration,

(o) See jwr Willes J., Pickering v. B/racombe Bg. Co., h. R 3
0. P. 260; per Turner LJ., Jorlin v. S. E. By 6 De
G. M. & G. 275; BiddeUv. Leeder, 1 B. & C. 327; Broa,mng,
Exp., L. B. 9 Ch. 583. See also Baker v. Bedgecock (1888), 39 Ch
Div. 520, per Chitty J., and the cases there cited; Bifme Exp
Burdelt, In re (1888), 20 Q. B. D. 310, C. A.; 57 L. J. Q. B.'
263 ; Itaacson, In re, Matou, Ejp. (1394), 64 L. J. Q. B. 191
Continental Tyre * BMer Co. v. Healk (1913), 29 T. h. B.
308.

(h) Otbone v. Amalgamated Socy. of Bailway ServanU, 80
L. J. Ch. 315. Comp. Swaine v. Wilion, inf. p. 704.

('•) Per Tindal C.J., Waite v. Jonen, 1 Bing. N. C. 662, and
Shmkell V. Roeicr, 2 Bing. N. C. 646 ; Collim v. G,™»«<' 51
E. K. 43.

WHETHHB WHOIB OB Part n- ^

^""^ "^ CONTRACT M VOID. 703

were illegal, and the ilieiralitv ^,m .
rest. Thus, although a «„ oh! "°* *""' *^«
was invalidated by a 8^^ \ ^' "^ " "^^"8
chargings of benefioe?*^ ^^°''. -^^^'-ed aS

void; a covenant rtheJdVt"""' ""^^'^
a charge, to pay ., "' "^^^^ ^'''"h created such

-^orce'd(;,.°Sr*'ahTo?;e'-^^'^'^-
as weU as personal chattels f '^^"'"'^ '«">
regards the latter, becal 1 ' "'"' ^'^^ "°'^ ««
^^^ statutory form («" b„ "1^""'''"" "''"
regards the real cV,attel« T ^^ ^""^'^ "«

illegal portions o he 1 7^ ''' '''''' ^""^
So though a bill of sale trtnJ ^^^^^^^le («).
way of mortgage wa vo d ^^ ''''^ ^ «hip by
omission to reoitrthr J /'"'''^"^^''^ "^ the

-ney advanced anV^tftL '^'^l *'^
was held valid and binding rf) s„^' T"'"' '^^^^'
be sued on his covenanT to 1 I' "" *'"'^* "^"^
an ta.es, although TalL^ , f^tt ^f ^^

-enants to pay the landlord?, ^Crt^:::':

(■») Mmi/s V. ieaJe, 8 T E 411

bo»ugh C.J., w.™ . a,.^8 E^Tr™' '' """' ^"-

(6) 45 & 46 Viot. 0. 43 8 q ■ A, I „

^'oHmj, [1916] 2 K. B. 302. ^® ' ^'"'"- '■■

(c) £ynie, Exp., Burdell iJ,. "i? r i ^ ^
*»./oni V. Col', 25 Q f D %o.'','^- '^^ '''■ ^ "'»
L- J. Q. B. 191. '™ ■ ■'»«««o«> if..' (1894), 64

(''J Kim,un V. Ccfc, S East, 234.

704

ISTBBPEETATION OF STATUTES.

i

^1

engagement which was penal and void (a). Whc
a miner entered into a contract of employme
with the owners of a colliery, by which he agre
not to leave his employment without givi
fourteen da3r8' notice, and farther agreed tl
deductions in contravention of a. 12, Coal Mit
Begulation Act, 1887, might be made fr(
his wages, it was held that the whole contri
of employment was not rendered illegal by 1
latter agreement, but he was liable to {
. damages' to the colliery owners for leaving wii
out notice (h). And a friendly society or corpon
body is not dis'-'^Ted from suing by reason of so;
of its rules being in restraint of trade s
so illegal (c).

On the same principle, f- hy-law which
partly good and partly bad ib valid as to i
former part, if the latter is distinct and separa
from it{d); and orders of justices and of ot

(a) See GatkeU v. King (1809), 11 East, 165 ; Bowe v. Sy
15 East, 440 ; Readthaw v. Balder; 4 Taunt 57 : Oremwoc
Liinion (fip.)> 5 Taunt. 727 ; PaMiiier v. Grawmd (185(
C. B. 774 ; The Buckhunt Peerage, 2 App. Cas. 1.

(6) 50 & 51 Viot. 0. 58 ; Kearney v. Whitehaven CoUiert/
[1893] 1 Q. B. 700. See also Chell v. Ball (1896), 12 T. I
408.

(c) Smaine v. Wilton, 24 Q. B. D. 252. Comp. Oihori
Amalgamated Socy. of Bailaay Servants, sup. p. 702.

(<J) B. V. Faversham, 8 T. B. 352 ; B. v. Luniie,91 Ii. J. I
loT; per Quain J., Ball v. Nixon, L. B. 10 Q. B. 160;

(a). Where
jmployment
b he agreed
lont giving
igreed that
Coal Mines
made from
9le oontraot
egal by the
ale to pay
laving ■with-
or corpoiate
,8on of some
trade and

N which is
I as to the
ad separable
,nd of other

Howe V. Synge,
7 : Qremmood v.
naend (18S0), 9
1.

ven CoUiery Co.t
16), 12 T. L. B.

7omj7. Oahorne v.
702.

:.e,91Ii.J.M.C.
5. B. 160; per

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE BKMRDIE8, 70S

authorities, and the award of arbitrators are
similarly treated (o).

SECTION II.— PUBLIC AND PRIVATE REMEDIES.

When a statute creates a new obligation, or
makes unlawful that which was lawful before, a
corresponding right is thereby imphedly given,
either to the public, or to the individual injured
by the breach of the enactment ; and sometimes
to both. Again, if the Legislature gives to an
association of individuals (e.g. a Trade Union)
which is neither a corporation nor a partnership
nor an individual, a capacity for owning property
and acting by agents, such capacity in the absence
of express enactment to the contrary involves the
necessary correlative of liability to the extent of
such property, for the acts and defaults of such
agents (ft).

Bayloy J., OJart v. Denim, 1 B & Ad. 95 ; B™o» v. Bohjhea,!
1 H. & 0. 601. See p. 523, sup.

(o) S. V. Stole Blim (1844), 13 L. J. M. C. 151 ; fl. v. Ozley,
6 Q. B. 256 ; B. v. Bobimon, 17 Q. B. 466 ; B v. Green, 20
L. J. M. C. 168 ; Goddard, .ie, 19 L. J. Q. B. 305.

(6) Pn ¥«iwb11 J. (affirmed by the House of Lords) in Taff
Vale Raiheay v. Amalgamated Society of '-jiag Servantt, 70
L. J. K. B. 905. That decision caused a labour agitation
resulting in the passing of the Trades Disputes Act, 1906, which
unfortunate Act legalised breaches of contract and interferences
if done " in contemplation or furtherance of a Trade Dispute,"
and prohibited actions of tort against a Trade Union.

l.S. 45

7M

INTERPRETATIOM OF STATITTES.

ri

Where a statute creates an offence and specifies
certain persons as those by whom the proTisions
of the Act shall be enforced, no other person can
prosecate for the offence (a). Where a penalty
18 imposed nothing being said as to who may
recover it, nor is it enacted for the benefit of
a party aggrieved, the offence not being against
an individual, the penalty belongs to the Crown,
and the Grown alone can maintain a snit for it (6).

If a statute prohibits a matter of public
grievance (c), or commands a matter of public
convenience (c2), all acts and omissions contrary
to its injunctions are misdemeanours ; and if it
omits to provide any procedure or punishment
for such act or default, the common law method
of redress is impliedly given; that is, the pro-
cedure by indictment, and punishment by fine
or imprisonment without hard labour, or both.
The Court may also require the defendant to
find sureties to keep the peace and be of good
behaviour (e). Thus, s. 7, 43 Eliz. c. 2, in

St

< J

(a) S. r. Cubitt, 22 Q. B. D. 623 ; Andenm T. Bamlin, 25
Q. B. D. 221.

(6) 29 & 30 Viot. 0. 19, a. 5 ; Bradlaugh v. Clarke, 8 App. Gas.
354. Comp. A.-O. v. Exeter Corporation, aup. p. 324.

(c) R. V. Saimbur), 2 R. R. 433.

{d) B. V. Datie, Say. 133 ; B. v. Price, 11 A. & E. 727.

{e) 2 Hawk. c. 25, s. 4 ; and see the cases ooUeoted in
Bum's J. Office 11.

IMPLIED BKMEDtES.

707

empowering jnstioes to order the father or other
relation of a pauper to pay for his maintenance,
impliedly provided for the enforcement of the
order by indictment (a). Churchwardens and over-
seers were indictable for not making a rate to
reimburse constables as directed by 14 Car. II.
0. 12, the word " may " in a statute being the
same as "shall" in acts relating to justice or
the public weal (6). So, refusal or neglect by
the father of a child to furnish the registrar of
births, when requested, the particulars required .
by 6 & 7 Will IV. c. 80, s. 20, is an indictable
misdemeanour (f). Where it was enacted under
the repealed Quarantine Acts (d) that all persons
coming from a place infected by the plague should
obey such orders as the King in council should
make ; the disobedience of any such order, being
a disobedience of the Act, would be indictable,
and punishable by fine and imprisonment («).

But the matter must be strictly of public con-
cern. If the statute extends only to particular
persons, or to matters of a private nature, as

(a) B. V. BMnson, 2 Burr. 799; B. v. Balme, 2 Cowp 648 ;
B. V. Ferrall, 2 Den. C. C. 51.

(b) R. V. BarloK, 2 Silk. 609.

(c) B. V. Price, 11 A. & E. 727.

(d) See the PubUe Health Act, 1896 (59 * 60 Vict. c. 19).

(e) B. V. Harri,, 2 R. R. 358 ; R v. Eaiah. 3 T. R. 637 ; U. v.
W<Uker, L. E. 10 Q. B. 355.

7W

'KTEBPRBTATIOK or WATtlTTO.

those relating to diatresses by lords on tbeir
tenants, disobedience wonld not be indictable («).
Where the burden of repairing a private road
for the use of the citners and occupiers of tene-
ments in nine parishes, was thrown upon the
owners and occupiers in six of those parishes;
the latter were held not indictable for the non-
repair of the road, because the duty did not
concern the public, but only the individuals who
had a right to use the private road (6).

If the statute which creates tte obligation,
whether private or public, providec in the same
section or passage a specific means or procedure
for enforcing it, no nllu methoJ than that thus
provided can be resorted to for that purpose (c).
Thus, where the Land Tax Redemption Act directed
that the tax should be added to the rent in all

(a) 3 Hawk. o. aS, B. 4.

(J) It. V. httkard,, 6 B. B. 489. 8f- also B. v. 8t«n, 3 Ban
1698, and R. v. Alkint, Id. 1706.

(c) Per StirUng J., Qrand Junetion Watermrh Co. v. Hampton
U. C, 67 L. J. Ch. 610, fuUy cited and applied by Eve J.
in Jlferrici v. Liverpool Corp., 79 L. J. Ch. 756, 757. See pit
Ix)i-d Tenterden, Doe v. Bridget, 1 B. & Ad. 859 ; per Lord
Denman, R. v. Baehamn, 8 Q. B. 887 ; per Lord Esher M.R,
A.-fl. V. Bradlaugh, 14 Q. B. D. 667; Lamplough y. Norim,
22 Q. B. D. 457; Wake v. SheffiOd (Mayor), 12 Q. B. D. 143,'
It. V. Cimiiy Court .Judge of Enaex, 18 Q. B. D. 707. This does
not apply to the equitable remedy by Injunction. See ex. gr.
Cooper V. Whittmgham, 49 L. J. Ch. 752, followed in Carllm

UFLIKD BKMXDin,

700

fature bishopt* leases, and should be reooyerable
m the same way as the rent, it was held not
recoverable by any other means (a). A breach of
54 6 Edw. VI. 0, 25{l>), which enacted that no
person should keep an ale-house, but such who
should be admitted thereunto and allowed in open
sessions, or by two justices, under the penalty of
summary commitment by justices for three days,
was not subject to prosecution by indictment (c).
The 31 Hen. VIII. o. 13(</), Laving enacted that
no spiritual person should take lands to faym, on
pain of forfeiting ^10, it was held that an offender
could not be indicted for a breach of this enact-
ment, but could only be sued for the penalty («).
Similarly, no indiotmoui; 'ill lie against an over-
seer of a parish for wilfully inserting the names
of unqualified persons in the voters' list, or for

muilralon v. Oolemm, 60 L. J. K. B. 510; Ba)«ard v. £a,(
London Walerwork., 28 Ch. D. 138 ; A.-O. v. Banngtiote, 45
Ii. J. Oh. 726. Paimore V. Otitaldtuiutle U. D. 0., [1898]
A. 0. 387. DUtinguished in S. v. Stepiu) Corp. (1901) 71
Ii. J. K. B. 238 ; [1902] 1 K. B. 317.

(o) Doe V. Bridget, 95 B. R. 483. Oomp. ScoUM Widow,'
Fund V. Craig (1882). 51 L. J. Ch. 363. Sea also Bailey v.
liadham (1886), 54 L. J. Ch. 1067; 30 Ch. D. 84; Itlinmuei, lt,j.
Co. V. Bhi/mney Iron Co., 25 Q. B. D. 146.

(b) Bepoaled, 9 Geo. IV. o. 61, s. 35.

(c) B. V. JBoi-nW, 4 \. 144 ; if. v. Back, 2 Stra. 679.
(<0 Repealed, 1&2 \iot. c. 106, s. 1.

(e) 2 Hale, P. C. 171 ; B. v. Wright, 1 Burr. 543. See also
per Cur., Cuacli v. Sleet, 2-5 L. .1. Q, B, 121.

710

INTEBPBBTATION OF STATUTES.

■i"

any other of tho offences specified in s. 31,
Parliamentaiy Voters Eegistration Act, 1843, as
the section specifies a particular penaJty for tlie
ofi'ences created, and thereby excludes all others (,().
Where an Act which, requiring shareholders to pay,
calls on their shares, provided that in case of
default the oompaoy might sue them in the courts
in Dublin ; it was held that an action would not
lie in England (A).

If the newly-created duty is simply an obligation
to pay money for a public purpose, the general
rule would seem to be that the payment oanuot
be enforced in any other manner than tliat
provided by the Act; though the provision be
not contained, as in the above cases, in the same
section as that in which the duty was created.
Thus, 43 EUz. c. 2, which, by s. 2, authorised the
imposition of a poor rate, and, by s. 4, empowered
the parochial officers to levy by distress tie
arrears from those who refused to pay, limited the
officers to this remedy, and gave no right of
action for a poor rate (f). Similarly, where high-

(a) 6 & 7 Vict. 0. 18 (repealed, 7 & 8 Goo. V. o. 64, s. 47,
Sohed. 8) ; S. v. Hall, [1891] 1 Q. B. 747.

{b) Dundalk Sij. Co. v. Tapsler, 1 Q. B. 667. See also R v.
County Court Judge of Eaie:,; 18 Q. B. D "04 ; B. v. Judge ./ |
City of London Court, 14 Q. B. D. 905.

(c) Slevent v. Evans (1761), 2 Burr. 1157, per Denison I
Discussed in Da«by v. Walton (1877), 46 L. J. M. 0., at p. ISl,

!MPT.I.-;d n'MEDIBS.

711

way rates wore ina.le payable under a statute
which prescribed a particular procedure for their
recovery, it was held that that method only could
be pursued, and that no action lay (a).

It is, however, a general rule, that where an
Act of Parliament creates an obligation to pay
money, the money may be recovered by action,
unless some other specific provision is contained
in the Act (A) ; that is, unless an exclusive remedy
be given (c) ; and the question may arise whether
the particular remedy given by the Act is cumula-
tive or substitutional for this right of action.
Where a harbour Act required the master of a
ship to pay certain duties to the trustees of the
harbour; and besides empowering the latter to
distrain for them, enacted that any master who
eluded payment should stand liable for the pay-
ment of them, and that they should be levied in
the same manner as penalties were directed by the
Act to be levied (that is, by action or distress), it
was held that the latter remedy was cumulative,

(a) Underhill v. EUkombe, McOlel. & Yo. 450. See also
iondon B. <f S. O. By. Co. v. Watson, 4 C. P. D. 118 ; and sup.
Chap. V. Sect. I. p. 235.

(6) Per Parke B., Shepherd v. H!lh, 11 Ex. 55. See also
ex. gr. Sieimon v. Heath, 3 Lev. 400; Pelham v. PklersgiU, 1
R. R. 348 ; JlfoMriie v. Marsilen, 19 L. J. C. P. 152 ; Datt v.
Price, 1 Q. B. D. 264 ; Booth v. Trail, 12 Q. B. D. 8.

(c) Per Martin B., Hitchinmn v. Gilleepie, 25 L. J. Ex. lO'J-
11. V. Hnlt <t Selhif R,j. Co., 13 L. -I, Q. B. 257.

712

INTEBPKETATION OF STATUTES.

and that as the Act had made the master liable

to pay the dues, an action lay for them (a). This

decision is said to have been based on the ground

that the particular remedy given by the Act did

not cover the whole right (6). But where a by.

law required a traveller without a ticket to pay

the fare from the station whence the train first

started to the end of his journey, and by s. 145,

8 & 9 Vict. c. 20, penalties for forfeitures imposed

by the by-laws were recoverable before justices;

it was held that the by-law did not create a debt

recoverable in a Court of civil jurisdiction (c).

Where an injunction of a statute .is general,
and is not contained in a clause specifying only
particular remedies for the breach of such injunc-
tion, such breach may be subject to the common
law procedure and punishment, though there be
afterwards a particular remedy given (rf). Thus
under 10 & 11 Will. III. c. 17, which declared, in

(o) Shepherd v. Hills (1855), 11 Ex. 55; 25 L. J. Ex. 6;
aistinguished in St. Panera. Teilry v. Battenbury (1857), 26
L. J. 0. P. 243.

(6) Per Williams J., St. Panerat Vestri, v. Batlenlnry 2 C B

N. S. 487.

(e) London B. i 8. C. %. Co. v. Watmn, i C. P. D. 118; dis-
tinguished in G. N. By. v. Winder, [18921 2 Q. B 595 ■ 61
L.J. Q. B. 608.

(i) Per Lord Denman C.J., B. v. Buchanan, 8 Q. B. 883,
citing B. V. Wright, 1 Burr. 543. See sup. 330. B. v. DavU,
Say. 133 ; B. v. Gould, 1 Salk. 381.

lUFLIED BEMEDI£g.

718

the Ist section, that keeping a lottery was a
public nuisance, and, by the 2nd, made the keeper
of one liable to a penalty recoverable by penal
action, it was held that the offender was also in-
dictable (a). 6 & 7 Vict. c. 73 (b) having enacted,
in one section, that no person should act as an
attorney or solicitor who was not duly admitted
and enrolled; and in another, that a breach of
this prohibition should be deemed a contempt of
Court; it was held that the offence was also
indictable (c). So, where a statute prohibited the
erection or maintenance of a building withii
ten feet of a road, declaring such an erection
a common nuisance; and, in another section,
authorised two justices to convict the proprietor,
and to remove the structure ; it was held that an
indictment, also, lay for the nuisance (d).

The underlying principle being— as already
stated — that where a statute renders acts punish-
able for the first time, if the statute contain no
general prohibition, the acts are not punishable

(o) R. V. Cramhaw, 30 L. J. M. C. 58.

(i) Partially repealed, S. L. B. {No. 2), 1874, and see
23 & 24 Viet. o. 127, s. 26.

(c) B. V. Buchanan (1846), 15 L. J. Q. B. 227. The offender
is a criminal, 0«6om« v. Milman, 18 Q. B. D. 471. But a
solicitor struck off the rolls for allowing an unqualified person
to use his name is not : Be Eede, 59 L. J. Q. B. 376.

{d) B. V. Qregory, 5 B. & Ad. 555.

714

IMTEBFBETATION OP STATUTES.

by indictment but only in the manner prescribed
by the statute (a).

The same principle applies when the duty is
a private one. Thus, the Distress for Eent Act,
1737 (11 Geo. II. c. 19), which, after (by s. 1)
authorising 'landlords to seize the goods of their
tenants, when fraudulently and clandestinely
removed to elude a distress, gives them, by
B. 4 (6), a summary remedy before justices, for re-
overing double the value of the goods removed,
against a tenant, or any person who assisted
him ; was held to give them also, by implioatiou,
the right of suing for damages for the fraudulent
or clandestine removal (c).

Where churchwardens refuse to allow an in-
spection of their accounts, the Court would not
refuse a mandamus to enforce the performance of
that duty, if advisable, on pubhc grounds, merely
because a pecuniary penalty, applicable to the use
of the poor of the parish, was imposed for the
refusal (d).

(a) B. V. Ball, [1891] 1 Q. B. 747, at p. 751.

(i) Sec. 4 is partially repealed by 47 & 48 Viot. c. 43, s. 4.

(c) Bromley v. Holden, 31 E. D. 727 ; Horsfall v. Dmy, 1
Stark, 169. See also CalUmon v. Newcastle By. Co., 1 C. & K.
546 ; fioM V. Rtigge-Prici!, 1 Ex. D. 269 ; disoaased in Puhfori
V. DevenUh, [1903] 2 Ch., at p. 634. See also Brain v. Thomat,
50 L. J. C. P. 662; and the caaes ooUeoted in the note to AMii
V. White, 1 Sm. L. C. 266, 12th ed.

(rf) B. V. Clfnt, 28 R. K. 498. See also Lirhjield v. Sinqmn,

IMPLIED BEMEDIES,'

718

When a statute imposes a ministerial, as dis-
tinguished from a judicial, duty, for the benefit
of particular individuals, any of these, if directly
injured by the breach of the duty, has impliedly
a right to recover, from the person on whom the
duty is cast, satisfaction for the injury done to
him contrary to the statute (a), unless, of course,
a different intention is to be collected from the
Act. Thus, an incorporated vestry, which refused
to perform the statutory duty of removing dirt
and ashes, was held liable in an action by the
party aggrieved, for the expenses incurred from
the refusal (6). Although in a later case it was
decided that a statutory breach of duty by a
corporation to remove street refuse from the
streets within its district did not give a right of
action to a person suffering special damage by
reason of such breach (c). But, on the other
hand, an unsuccessful candidate at an election is
entitled to sue the returning officer for compensa-
tion, if the loss of the election was owing to the

15 L. J. Q. B. 78, and see Gt. Norlliem i'hhing Co. v. EdgehUl
(1883), 11 Q. B. D., at p. 226.

(o) 2 Westmr. 13 Edw. I. o. 50; 1 Inst. 56a ; Anon., 6 Mod.
27 ; jjer Cur., Couci v. S(ec;(1834), 23L. J.Q. B. 121 ; approved
ill Sober/son v. Amaton Tug d Lighterage Co. (1881), 51 L. J. Q. B.
G8, at p. 72 ; questioned Atkinson v. Newcmtle d Gatishead Water-
imrka Co. (1877), 46 L. J. Ex. 775.

(6) Bolbom Union v. St. Leonard, 2 Q. B. D. 145.

(c) Saunihm v. Hollmm District Bit of iirlit, [18U4] 1 Q. B. 64.

716

INTEBPRETATION OF STATUTES.

•|^

41

i '1 1

officer's neglect of the prescriptions of the BaUot
Act, 1872, upon the ground that such duties were
merely ministerial (a). An action was held maiu-
tamable by the pariiy wronged against a deputy
postmaster, for not delivering a letter according
to Lis duty under the repealed 9 Anne, o. 10
B. 2 ; though he was also liable, under the same
Act, to a penalty for detaining letters, recoverable
by a common informer (6). Under the repealed
8 Anne, c. 19, which gave authors the sole right
of pnnting their works for fourteen years, axid
provided that if any other person printed tHem
without consent, he should forfeit the printed
matter to the proprietor, and a further penny for
every sheet, one haJf to the Queen, and the other
half to the informer, the author was also entitled
to sue for damages (c). If a railway company
were prohibited, for the protection of the owner
of one ferry, from making a line to another ferry
an action would lie for breach of the prohibitioi'
without special damage (d).

l^. e. 489. See also Foihmby v. Xetrop. Bg. Co., L. E. 2 0 P 188
(6) Bo^^ng yGoodcMld. 2 W. Bl. 906. For existing law. sea
8 Bdw. VII. c. 48, ss. 53 and 57 (/).

(c) Bedford v. ffood. 4 B. S. 527. See also Novell,, v

A^In : ■'■ ?■ ""■ '''• *'" ^"'""8 '»-■ =- Copyright
tt i " * ^^q^i'Mo" thereonin Clei-k and Lind.eli o.
lorts, Chap. XXI.

(d) Cliamberlaine v. Cheiler By. Co., 18 L. J. Ex. 494.

IMPLIED REMEDIES. yiy

Sec. 38, Companies Act, 1867 (repealed s 80

reSTthTr""'^"''''^ ^^'' ^^0«). wtS, aS
STnV """"^ Prospectus and notice of a
joint-stock company, inviting persons to subscribe
or shares shall specify the dates and names "h
parties to contracts entered into hv fj,.
or its promoters before thelst of'^t ^^S
or notice, declares that every vrosnJTtu
does not complywith this proiS:,^^^^^^^^

he aith 'o? «,:T ^'''^^ ^''^ '^^^ *ares 'on

ne faith of such prospectus, and in ignorance nf

the unmentioned contract, was held'toTve b'

implication to such shareholders a cause of acti

against every such issuer of the prospec us («)

If, indeed, the breach of the new^^^f^• ;,
by the Act subject to a pecuntryTenX'rvt
able only by the party aggrieved, the inference
would seem to be that this pena% was intended
as a compensation for the private injury ^1!!^

would be no other remedy for either the one or
the other (5). Thus, where an Act provided that

(a) Charlton v. ffan, 31 Uw Times 437 c!»<. n .
;^ Oh. D. 182, per Jan,es L.J. and B™i B 7" '""•

718

WTEBPRETATION OF UTATITTBS.

if one fishing-boat interfered with anoth ,r nn-le,.
certain circumstances, the party interfering should
forfeit a penalty, recoverable summarily before
justices to whom powers were given of enforcing

l^r, ,T!w ^^ ^'''""' """^ imprisonment; it
was held that no action for special damage L
maintainable, but that the party injured wa,
limited to the remedy given by the statute (a)
It has been observed, indeed, respecting this
case that no duty was imposed on the defendant
by the Act; that he was only prohibited, under
a penalty, from exercising" the right of fishiu-
to the extent that he had it at common law"
that he was not bound to perform any particular
duty created by tbe Act, but only to forbear to
do that which, but for the Act, he might have
done (6). But it may be doubted whether the
suggested distinction is substantial. If, for the
protection of particular persons, an Act prohibited
a raUway company from making a line in a certain
direction, tbe company would seem liable to au
action by those persons for damages sustained
from a breach of the enactment (c). At all events
the only duty created, if any, was one to the party

Naylor, Cro. Eliz. 480; sup. pp. 354, 356 ; S. y. Hich, 24 L. ,T.
M. C. 94 ; Anderton v. Hamlin, 20 Q. B. D. 221.

(o) Stevens v. Jeacocie, 17 L. J. Q. B. 163.

(6) Per Cur., Couch v. Steel, sup. p. 715.

(c) See Chamberlaini v. Oheeler By. Co., sup. p. 716.

IMPMED HEMEDIES. -,p

with infectious diseases, may rive a wlf ,
action to the ownAr nf .^ f "^'■' °f

y suon cattle getting on the line, would

(a) JTard v. abftj, (igyg). 43 L. J. Q B 281 A» f • •
1™, see 57 & 58 Vict. 0. 57 s 22 riYi !, "^ *""'°8

0; tbe Wals (Tra.it and Z^^t:£ Z^ ^IT ''

720

INTKRPRETATIOX 0» STATtTCT.

not be entitled to an action for the neglect to
fence (a).

The general principle was formerly considered
of wider application ; for it was deemed that
whenever a statutory duty was created, any
person who could show that he had sustained an
injur} from the non-performance of it, had a
right of action for damages against the person on
whom the duty was imposed. Accordingly, where
an Act (repealed and replaced by 57 & 58 Vict.
c. 60, s. 200) required the owner of a ship to
keep on board a sufSoient supply of medicines,
under a penalty of £W recoverable at the suit
of any person and divisible between him and the
Seamen's Hospital, it was held that the owner
was liable also to an action by a seaman, for
compensation for the special damage which he
hadj sastained from a neglect to supply the ship
with medicines, as required by the Act (6). But
this proposition cannot be now regarded as law.
Whether any such right of action arises by im-

(o) Buxim V. -V. E. Bn. Co. (1868), L. B. 3 Q. B. 549; 37
L. J. Q B. 258. Discussed and applied, Thamaa v. Rhymney By.
(1870), 39 L. J. Q. B. 141.

(i) Coucli V. Sleel, sup. p. 715 ; Bolmet v. Clarke, 39 L. J. Ej.
133. As to expenses of medical attendance in case of injury or
illness to seanien, see 6 Edw. VII. o. 48, s. 34. For Medical
Provisions in case of Emigrant Ships, see 57 & 58 Vict. c. 60,
s. 303.

tHPLIEO BIMUOIBS.

721

pUcation mu.t depend on the purview of the
Aot (a).

Where it was enacted that a waterworks com-
pany should (1) fix and maintain fire-plugs; (2)
urmsh water for baths, wash-houses, and severs
(3) keep the pipes always charged at a certain
pressure, allowing aU persons to use the water
for extinguishing fires, without compensation:
and (4) supply the owners and occupiers of houses
with water for domestic purposes; subject to a
penalty of flO for any breach of any of those
duties recoverable by the common informer, and
0 a further penalty of forty shiUings a day for
breaches of the second and fourth duties, recover-
able by any ratepayer; it was held that the owner
of a house burnt down through the company's
neglect to keep their pipes duly charged, had
no right of action under the statute against the
company. It was improbable that Parliament
would impose, or the company would have con-
sented to undertake, not only the duty of supply-
ing gratuitously water for extinguishing fires, but
in addition, the hability of compensating everj^
householder injured, as well as of paying the
penalties attached to the neglect of theii- duty
Besides, the circumstance that penalties for breach

(n) See Alleiruon v. Nemmth Walervmrk, Co., 2 Ex D 441
^r Lord Cairns Cookburn C.J., and Brett L.J. ; ^„A«^„ ,.'
Oamnmert Got Co. ,,/ Toronto, 67 L J P C 33

■ ■ ■ 40

722

INTBRPBITATION OF BTATimH.

of the leoond and fourth dntiei were recoverable
by the ratepayers, raised the inference that the
other obligations vere intended for the public
benefit only (a). So where a duty was for the first
time imposed by statute (17 & 18 Vict. c. 104) (/)
on the master of a ship, subject to a penalty of
£10, to give a seaman a certificate of discharge,
it was held that an action for damages for breach
of this duty was not maintainable (c).

Where, however, no penalty is provided by at
Act for the contravention of its provisions, ii
person injured by a breach of an absolute and
unqualified duty imposed by an Act, has au
undoubted cause of action ; and where a penalty
is imposed, the cause of action remains, unless
it appears from the whole purview of the Act,
that the Legislature intended that the only
remedy should be by proceeding for the recovery
of the penalty (d).

The true principle is, that where the public

(o) Atkituon v. Newemfie Watennorkt Co. (1877), 46 L. J. Ex.
775 ; Joktulan v. Cotmmer^ Qm Co. of Toronto, [1898] A. C.
447, P. C.

(6) Bepealed, 57 & 68 Viet. o. 60, s. 745, and see 6 Edw. VII.
0. 48, BS. 31 aod 33.

(c) 17 & 18 Viot. 0. 104, 8. 172 ; VaUanee v. Falle, 13 Q. B. D.
109. Bee also 0. N. Steamihip Co. v. Edgehill (1883), 11
Q. B. D. 225. Discussed in Sharp v. Retlie (1884), 11 Ct. ol |
Sess. Cub. (4th ser.), 745.

(il) Urova V. Wimhome, [1898] 3 Q. B. 402.

IMPUID REMEDIEg. 723

duty imposed by the Act is not intended for
he benefit of any particular class of persons, but
for that of the pubUe generally, no right of action
accrues by implication to any person who suflers
uo more injury from its breach than the rest
of the public. Where a specific remedy is pro-
vided by statute, proceedings must be taken to
enforce it, and if no specific remedy is so provided
the proper course is to proceed by indictment. A
pubUc injury is indictable ; but it is not actionable,
unless the sufferer from its breach has sustained
some direct and substantial private and particular
damage beyond and in excess of that suflfered in
common with the rest of the public (a). If A.
digs a trench across the highway, he is indictable
only; but if B. falls into it, A. is liable to an
action by B. for the particular injury sustained (A).
It has been held that the obstruction of a navi-
gable river becomes a private injury as weU as a
public nuisance, if access is thereby prevented to
the inn of the plaintiff, who loses customers ia

(«) Ite,o» V. Moort, 1 Salk. 15 ; B. v. ij««<,«, 8 B. B 506 •
«. V. Bri^ol Dock Co.. 11 B. B. 440; per Cur, Ckamberhi„e v'
ae.Ur ic. Ry. Co.. 8up. p. 716; aio,>op v. Hesloa Loc. Bd. 12
Ch. D. 102, distinguished in /<,««, v. Llannat U. C, 30 L. J. Ch
145; fwimore v. Onealdlwistle V. D. C. [1898] A. C. 387
Per WiUs J., Clegg v. Barh Oat Co.. [1896] 1 Q. B. 592

(b) Gould V. Birkenhead Corp. (1910), 8 L. E. G. 395 And
SCO Clerk and LindsoII on Torts, 6th od. Chap. I., pp. 33 ,,,, „,

734

INTBBPRBTATION OP STATUTES.

5

consequence (a) ; but it is now established that a
person injured in respect of goodwill by a tern-
porary obstiuction created under statutory powers
has no remedy by action (A). Where, however,
the public duty of repairing a sea-wall was imposed
on a municipal corporation, it was held that an
individual whose house was damaged by the sea,
in consequence of the neglect of this duty to
keep the wall in repair, was entitled to sue the
corporation for compensation (c). But the injury
must be the proximate, necessary, or natural result
of the infringement of the duty; the infringement
being the causa catisans, and not merely a caiua
sine qud non, of the special damage (d).

Nor does any right of action arise where the
duty has been imposed by the Legislature for a
purpose altogether foreign to individual interests.

' (rt) Rote V. ffrouM, 12 L. J. C. P. 251 ; WOkm v. Hunijer/ml
Market Co. (1835), 2 Bing. N. C. 281 ; Lgon v. Fuhnyjngern' Co.,
1 App. Ctts. 662; Mareliall v. Ulkmealer Co., L. E. 7 Q. B. 171,
per Blackburn J. ; Seeketl v. Midland By. (1867), L. E. 3 C V.
82, at p. 96.

(!») Bickees Case (1867), L. E. 2 H. L. 175.

(c) Lijm Regit v. Beuley, 37 E. E. 125 ; iJ«ii v. WHUam,
sup. p. 173. See Nitrophoepkate Co. v. St. Katherinc Docke Co., !)
Ch. D. 503. See also per Brett Ii.J., Glottop v. Heiton Loc. Bl,
12 Ch. D., at p. 121.

(d) Benjamn v. Starr, L. E. 9 0. P. 400; Colchester v. Brmle,
15 L. J. Q. B. 59; Walker v. Goe, 3 H. & N. 395 ; 4 Id. 330;
Romiiey Marth v. Triniln Home, It. E. 5 Ex.204 ; 7 Id. 247.

IMPLIEn REMEDIES.

726

view solely the sanitary purpose of preventing
So, although the parish snrvevor of h,-<,T,w

surveyor was, personally, no party. The tuWes
bus imposed on him are duties to his parish no.
0 the public; the Act having been passed 1
0 create a new liability either fn the pS tt
her persons but to provide for the fulfilment S
the surveyor's duty to the parish (*). ThTduty

«'»™» V. i>..™ (,853). 23 L. J. M. C. 97%tlr,:

726

INTERPRETATION OP STATUTES.

Of keeping the roads in repair, as regards the
pubhc, lay on the parish; and though a parish
like a county, could not be sued civilly, as it was
not a corporate body, and could not be compelled
to appear in Court (a), this furnished no logical
ground for making, under the above ciroum.
stances, their officer liable to an action (i) for
non-feasance merely, and not misfeasance (c). The
liability of a local authority is not more exten-
sive (d).

And it must now be taken as settled law that a
transfer to a public corporation of the obligation
to repair does not of itself render such corpora-
tion liable to an action in respect of mere non-
feasance (e).

«. B 487, Gibson v. iV«(on, L. B. 5 Q. B. 318; WkH, v. I

J'b 0^"°*' "" "" '" "'• ^- ^'^- ■^- '■ ^'^' (*'"»')■ " I

(a) Bmsell v. Men of Devon, 1 B. B. 585. Comp. Hartaall v, I
ityde Commuaionert, 33 L. J. Q. B. 39. I

(6) Per Cur., 2 H. & C. 198. Comp. Blackmore v. Mile kJ
Vestry, 9 Q. B. D. 451.
(e) Pendlelury v. Oreenhalgh, I Q. B. D. 3G.
{d) Cowley v. Nemmarhet Loc. Bd., [1892] A. C. ,S54;|
Munieipal Council of Sydney v. Bourke, [1895] A. C. 433 ■ Pkfm
V. Geldert, [1893] A. C. 524 ; Moore v. Lambeth W. w'. Co., 17
Q. B. D. 462; Thompmn v. Brighton (Mayor), [1894] 1 Q B I
332 ; Steel v. Dartford Loe. Bd., 60 L. J. Q. B. 256 ; .V„„„aJ
V. Nolborn Bd of Worke, [1896] 1 Q. B. 64.
(e) Short v. Hammertmlth Corp. (1911), 104 L. T. 70.

BEPEAl.

727

been intended for the benefit of „ ^^'

whom the license was granted rTv. ^T'' *°

^a^agema^haveheenStdtotrS^?

enaTrnt^Lt^JldTa^C'i*': '^^-"''°"
no intention tha^t the fStT^il ^^tt re^^^
the common law rule was that the repei ofT,
second Act revived the first; and revKd it too
«* ^n^t^o, and not merely from the palslnt !f .?
reviving Act(c). Bat this rule doe! 3 ° f'
to repealing Acts passed since 18.0 wLT^^

(6) Boa Ab. Aoaon sur case, M 16 n lofl •. . • ,
judgment in Couch v. Steel, 3 E. & B 402 '" ""•

^B6. ^r Be. C... . ^„. J il^^^^; 'cTr.' f >

728

IXTERPHETATIOK OP STATUTES.

Act repealing, in whole or in part, a former Act,
is itself repealed, the last repeal does not now
revive the Act or provisions before repealed, unless
words be added reviving them (a). It is doubtful
whether this rule applies to a repeal by implica-
tion (see sup. pp. 286-295) ; but it seems not to
apply where the first Act was only modified by
the second, by the addition of conditions, and
the enactment which imposed these was, itself,
afterwards repealed (i). Semble, in such a case,
the original enactment would revive.

Where an Act expired or was repealed, it was
formerly regarded, in the absence of provision
to the contrary, as having never existed, except
as to matters and transactions past and closed (c).
Where, therefore, a penal law was broken, the
offender could not be punished under it, if it
expired before he was convicted, although the

(o) 52 & 53 Vict. 0. 63, s. 11.

(6) Mnunt v. Taylor, L. B. 3 0. P. 645. See also Levi v.
Sandenon, L. B. 4 Q. B. 332; Mirfin v. AHmmd, L. B. 4 O B
330.

(c) For adisooBsion on this proposition, see Bemeti v. Tattm,
[1918] W. N. 291, and as to the general rule, see per Lord
Tenterden, SuHem v. EUUon. 9 B. & C. 752 ; Churchill v. Creatf.
5 Bing. 177. See also Kay v. Goodwin, fl Bing. 582, iier
Tindal C.J. ; A..G. v. lamplugh (1878), 3 Ex. Div., at p. 217;
Morgan v. Thorn, 10 L. J. Ex. 125 ; Steavemon v. Olirer, 10
L. J. Ex. 338 ; Simptm v. Ready, 11 M. & W. 346, per Parke B.
Comp. B. V. Wett Siding, 1 Q. B. D. 200.

REPEAL.

729

proseontion was begun whUe the Act was stiU
in force (a). An offence committed against it
while It was still in force, could not be tried
after it ceased to be in force. Thus 10 & 11
Will. IIL 0. 23, which made larceny above five
shillings a capital offence, having been repealed
on the 20th of July, 1820, by 1 Geo. IV. c 117
an offence against the earlier Act committed on the'
nth of July, could not be punished in the foUowing
September; under the new Act, for it was not in
force when the theft was committed, nor under
the old one, for it was not in force at the time of
the tnal{A). In an action for less than forty
shJhngs, the defendant pleaded that the debt ought
to have been sued for in a local Court of Eequests.
But the Act estabUshing that Court having been
repealed after the plea but t, >re the trial, the
plea failed (c). Where an Act which authorised
the laying of rails on a road was repealed, it was
doubted whether the raOs could lawfully remain (,/)
Where a plaintiff got a verdict for one shilling,

Jo) 1 Hale, p. 0. 391, 309; JfiSer-, Case, 1 W. Bl. 461 •

(6) B. V. McKentie, Kuss. & B. 429.

(c) Wane V. Beresford, sup. p. 401.

(d) a. V. Morrit, 1 B. 4 Ad. 441.

730

INTEBPBRTATION OF STATUTES.

in June, 1840, and the judge did not grant a
oertifioate to deprive him of costs under 43 Eliz.
c. 6, until the following month, by which time
that Act was repealed by 3 & 4 Vict. o. 24 ; it
was held that the power of certifying could not
be exercised, in such a case, after the repeal,
and that the oertifioate was void (a). So, where
-n action was brought and judgment recovered
in 1867, in a case where title was in question,
and the plai-itiflF would then have had his costs,
either by the presiding judge's certificate, under
13 & 14 Vict. 0. 61, or by a judge's order, to
which he would have been entitled ex dehito juntkia
under 15 & 16 Vict. c. 54, but he obtained neither
until after the 1st of January, 1868, when both
of those Acts stood repealed by 30 & 31 Vict.
0. 142 (which is itself repealed by 51 & 52 Vict.
c. 43) ; it was held that the powers under those
Acts had ceased to exist, and could not be
exercised in the plaintiff's favour (h).
Under earlier friendly societies Acts, claims

(a) M<»gan v. Thorn (1841), 10 L. J. Ex. 125; ButeAer v.
Hendenon (1868), L. B. 3 Q. B. 335.

(6) Butcher v. Hendemn (1868), L. B. 3 Q. B. 335, dissenting
from BetlaU v. Londoa d S. W. By. Co., L. B. 3 Ex. 141, where
Morgan v. Thorn, sup., was not cited. See also Wood v. Ilikii
L. B. 3 C. P. 26; Doe v. Holl, 21 L. J. Ex. 335; Lem v,
Sander.on (1869), 38 L. J. Q. B. 135 (explaining Butcher v,
HendetMon). Oomp. Doe v. Roe, 22 L. J. Ex. 17 ; Hobton v. Neale
22 Id. 175.

REPKAL.

781

against a society could be enforced only by suing
its officers. The 26 & 26 Vict. c. 87 (a), repealing
those Acts, provided for the incorporation of the
societies, and provided also that all legal proceed-
ings then pending against an officer on account
of a society might be prosecuted by or against
the society in its registered name, without abate-
ment. But the Aot made no provision respecting
the recovery of claims which were then pending,
but which had not been sued for. It was held
that neither the officers (A), nor the society itself,
in its new corporate capacity (c), could be sued
in respect ot such claims ; but that the individual
members of the society were liable to be sued for
them (rf).

Now, under the provisions of s. 38 (2), Interpre-
tation Act, 1889 (62 & 53 Vict. o. 63), any repeal
by that Aot or any subsequent Act, unless the
contrary intention appears, does not

(a) revive anything not in force, or existing
at the time at which the repeal takes
effect; or
(6) affect the previous operation of any enact-

(o) Bopealed by 39 & 40 Viot. o. 45, which is itself repealed
by 56 & 57 Viot. o. 39.
(6) Toutill V. Douglas, 33 L. J. Q. B. 66.

(c) Linton v. Blakeney Co-op. Socy., 34 L. J. Ex. 211.

(d) Dean v. Mellard (1863), 32 L. J. C. P. 282, distinguished
io Queennland Indmlrial Sodetg v. PicUet (1865), 35 L. J. Ex. 1.

782

INTEBFRETATION Ot BTATUTKtI.

ment bo repealed or anything dnly done
or Boffered under any enactment so re-
pealed; or
(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation, or
liability acquired, accrued, or incurred
under any enactment bo repealed (a) ; or
(rf) affect any penalty, forfeiture, or punish-
ment incurred in reapect of any offence
committed against any enactment so re-
pealed (h) ; or
(e) affect any investigauon, legal proceeding,
or remedy in respect of any such right,
privilege, obligation, liability, penalty,
forfeiture, or punishment as aforesaid ;
and any such investigation, legal proceeding, or
remedy may be instituted, continued, or enforced,
and any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment
may foe imposed, as if the repealing Act had not
been passed (c).

If a contract was illegal when it was entered
into, and the statute which made it - so is after-
wards repealed, the repeal will not give validity
to the contract, unless it appears that the repeal-
ing enactment was intended to have a retrospective

(0) Leai, V. Hughes, [1916] 1 K. B. 831, C. A.

(1) See as to effect on Statutory Order, Bennett v. Tatton,
[1918] W. N. 292.

(c) See Gwynne v. Drewitt, [1894] 2 Ch. 616 ; 63 L. J. Ch,
870. And see Tram v. MeAllitter (1890), 25 L. B. (Ir.) 624.

RKPEAL.

788

operation, and thus to yary the relation of the
parties to each other (a).

An enactment that oflfendera should be prose-
cuted and punished for past oflFences. as if the
Act against which they had offended had not
been repealed, was held to create no fresh power
to punish, but only to preserve that which before
existed; and not to authorise punishment after the
Act which created the offence had ceased to exist(A)
Sec. 11, Interpretation Act, 1889, declares that
when any Act passed ,»fter 1850 repeals another
m whole or part, and substitutes some provision
or provisions in lieu of the provision or provisions
repealed, the latter remain in force until the
substituted provision or provisions come into
operation by force of the last-made Act This
provision is only declaratory of the common law
rule(c). When the Interpretation Act, 1889, or
any Act passed after its commencement repeals
and re-enacts, with or without modification, any
provisions of a former Act, references in any other
Act to the provisions so repealed are, unless the
contrary intention appears, to be construed as
references to the provisions so.re-enacted (d).

(«) Jaque, V. WMy, 1 H. BI. 65; Bilchcock v. Way. 45 B. B
bod. Comp. Bodgkiumn v. Wynii, 13 L. J. Q B 54

(•■) Per Cur., Buhlicr v. Henderson, L, B. 3 Q. B 335
('0 32 & 53 Viot. 0. 63, g. 38 (1).

7M

IMTKRPBBTATIOII OF 8TATUTC8.

If a temporary Act be continued by a sub-
sequent one, or an expired Act be revived by a
later one, all infringement! of the provisions oou-
taiued in it are breaches of it rather than of the
renewing or reviving statute (a).

Where the provisions of one statute are, by
reference, Incorporated in another, and the earlier
statute is afterwards repealed, the provisions so
incorporated obviously continue in force, so far
as they form part of the second enactment (i).
Thus, when 32 & 33 Vict. o. 27(c), enacted that
certain provisions as to appeds to Quartei
Sessions comprised in the 9 Geo. IV. c. 61, should
have effect respecting the grant of certificates
under the new Act, and 36 & 36 Vict. c. 94,
repealed the Act of Geo. IV., it was held that
those provisions remained in full force, so far as
they formed part of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 27 (d).

Sec. 64, 9 Geo. IV. c. 40, empowered two justices
of the county where a prisoner was detained in
custody, who had been acquitted of felony on
the ground of insanity, to determine his settle-

(o) a. V. Morgan, 2 Stra. 1066; Shifman v. Henbetl, 1 T. E,
109 ; DingUji v. Movr, Cro. Eliz. 750.

(b) S. V. Slock, 8 A. & E. 405; S. v. Merioneiluhire, 6 Q. B. 'iil

(c) Repealed, 10 Edw. VIL and 1 Goo. V. c. 24, B. 112,
Sohed. VII.

(d) S. V. Smith (1873), L. E. 8 y. B. 146. Comp. BinI
Adeock (1878), 47 L. J. M. C. 123.

OBSOLKTK BTATDTC8.

7SB

ment, and to order his parish to pay suoh a sun
as a Secretary of State should direct, for his
maintenance; and the Act contained also pro-
visions with reference to appeals from such orders.
Sec. 7, 8 & 4 Vict. c. 64 (a), after reciting the above
section, repealed so mnch of it as related to the
Secretary of State, and enacted that the justices
should order the payment of such sum as they
should, themselves, direct. Five years later, the
Act of Geo. IV. was totally repealed. It was
held that the justices had authoHty to make the
order under the Act of 3 & 4 Vict. (A), and that
perhaps even the right of appeal had been impliedly
preserved (c).

A law is not repealed by 'rooming obsolete (rf).
Thus, trial by battle,— with its oaths denying resort
to enchantment, sorcery, or witchcraft, by which

(o) Bepesled, 47 i 48 Viot. o. 64, s. 17.

(6) B. V. Stepiuy, L. B. 9 Q. B. 383.

(«) Per Blackburn J., Id. 39S. See B. v. Lmm Primi, h. R.
10 Q. B. 679.

(rf) White V. Bcol, 3 T. B. 274 ; p«- Hnllook B., Tt/ion v.
Thomu, Mod. & Y. 126, per Lord Kenyon, Leigh v. Kent,
3 T. R 362; B. v. Welh, 4 Dowl. 662; The India {No. 2), 33
L. J. P. M. & A. 193 ; Hebbert v. Purehat (1871), L. K. 3 P. C.
650. The reasoning in this case is disapproved in Bead v. £p.
of Lincoln, [1892] A. C. 644. Acts of the Scottish Parliament
may become repealed by "desuetude"; Suggan v. Wood,
[1889] 16 Rettie (Justiciary), 96.

788

INTBItPBlTATIOM OF 8TATUTM.

the law of Ood might be depressed and the law
of the devil exalted (a), though the trial by graud
assise, introdnoed in the time of Henry II., had
practically superseded it for centuries,— was still
in force in 1819 (b). The writ of attaint against
jurors for a false verdict was not abolished uutil
1826 (o). Until 1789, the sentence on womeu
for treason and husband-murder was burning
alive; though in practice ladies of distinctiou
wore usually beheaded, while those of inferior
rank were strangled before the fire reached
them (d). Drawing and quartering was still part
of the sentence for treason until 1870. Until
1844, it was an indictable offence to sell com
in the sheaf before it had been thrashed out and
measured (e) ; an Irish Act (28 Eliz. o. 2), against
witchcraft, was still in force in 1821 (/); and, p
late as 1836, insolvents in Scotland were bound to
wear a coat and cap half yellow and half brown (jj).
So, at common law eavesdroppers, or such as

(n) 2 Hale, P. 0. 233 ; 3 Bl. Comm. 387.

(I.) 59 Geo. in. 0.46. Aihfordv.Th<mU<m{1816),i9'a.n.3iO.
1 B & Aid. 4o5 ; dlsoussed in (MMI v. Grey (1850), 19 L. J. Ex,
137 ; 4 Ex. 729.

(c) 6 Geo. IV. 0. 50, s. 60.

(d) 3 Inst. 211 ; Fost. Or. Jj. 268.

(e) 3 Inst. 197 ; 7 & 8 Viot. o. 24.

(/) 1 & 2 Geo. rv. 0. IB. For the English Acts relating to
Witchcraft, see p. 632, Supp. to Stroud's Judicial Dictionary,
(ff) 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 56, 3. 18.

0B80LKTE STATUTES.

787

listen under walls or windows or the eaves of a
hoase, to hearken after discourse, and thereupon
to frame slanderous and mischieTous tales, are
still liable to fine (a) ; and a common scold seems
still subject (after conviction upon indictment) to
be placed in a certain engine of correction called
the trebucket or cucking-stool, or ducking-stool,
and, when placed therein, to be plunged in water
for her punishment (A). To destroy any of the
King's victualling stores seems to be still a capital
offence (c). It is still a temporal and indictable
offence to deny the being or providence of the
Ahnighty, or, if the offender was educated in,
or ever professed the Christian religion, to deny
its truth, or the divine authority of the Holy
Scriptures (rf). An Act of 1786) is still in force
which imposes the penalty of flogging upon
persons who slaughter horses or cattle without
a Ucense, or at unlicensed hours (»■). Suffragan

(o) a H»wk. a 10, B. 58, 4 Bl. Comm. 169; Bum's J.
Eavesdroppers,

(6) 1 Hawk. c. 75, a. 14 ; 4 Bl. Comm. 169 ; Bun's J.
Nuisance, s. 4.

(<•) Sec. 1, 12 Geo. III. o. 24, Dockyards 4o. Protection
.\ot, 1772. " So far as related to Scotland," this death penalty
was repealed by the Statute Law Revision Act, 1892.

(d) 9 Will. III. c. 35, amended by 53 Geo. III. o. 160, aa
regards the Holy Trinity. See also Mr. Justice Stephen's Hist.
Crim. L., Vol. 2, pp. 469, 483, 493.

(c) Sec. 8, 26 Geo. III. o. 71, tlio Knackers Act, 17«G,

I.B. 47

788

ISTERPBETATION OF STATUTES.

bishops are now appointed under 26 Hen. VIII.
0. 14, although the Act had not been put iuto
force for four hundred years (a) ; and at the present
day 8. 43 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876,
has been so strained in its interpretation as to
include numerous articles obviously never within
the contemplation of the framers of the sectiou.

But as usage is a good interpreter of law (see suji.
pp. 531 et i>e-].), BO non-usage lays an antiquated
Act open to any construction, weakening, or even
nullifying its effect (6). And penal laws, if tbey
have been sleepers of long time, or if they be
grown unfit for present use, should be, by wise
judges, confined in the execution (c).

Down to the reign of Henry VII., the statutes
passed in a session were sent to the sheriff of
every county with a writ, requiring him to pro-
claim them throughout his bailiwick, and to see
to their observance. Some Acts (the Triennial
Act of 1641, for example) contained a section
requiring that they should be read yearly at
sessions and assizes. But proclamation, or any
other form of promulgation, was never necessary

repealed, as reg.vrds London, by s. 142 and Sched. V. Public
Health (London) Act, 1891, 54 i 55 Vict. c. 76.

(a) 26 Hen. VIII. o. 14, was extended by 51 & 52 Vict. c. 56,
and explained by 61 & 62 Vict. c. 11.

(b) See ex. gr. Leigh v. Kent (1789), 3 T. E. 364.

(c) Lord Bacon, Essay on Judicature.

OOHHENOKMENT OF OPEBATIONB.

789

to their operation (a). Every one is bound to
take notice of that which is done in Parliament.
As Boon as the Parliament has concluded any-
thing, the law presumes that every person has
notice of it; for the Parliament represents the
body of the whole realm, and therefore it never
was requisite that any proclamation should be
made ; the statute took effect before (i).

A statute takes effect from the first moment
of the day (c) on which it is passed, unless
another day be expressly named, in which case it
comes ini.0 operation immediately on the expira-
tion of the previous day (d). By a fiction of law,
the whole session was formerly supposed to be
held on its firat ,day, and to last only that one
day ; and every Act, if no other day was expressly
fixed for the beginning of its operation, took

(a) In France, a law took effect only from the date of its
insertion in the Bulletin des Lois. In ancient Borne, a Senatiu
Cotuttltum had no force till deposited in the Temple of Saturn ;
liivy, 39, i. See Suet. Aug. S4.

(6) Per Thorpe O.J. (39 Edw. III.), cited in i Inst. 26.

(c) In a case decided early in 1882, the Supreme Court of the
United States took notice of the hour when an Act was passed,
for the purpose of determining v.-hether it affected the validity
of bonds issued by the town of Louisville. The bonds were
issued early on the 2nd of July ; the Act prohibiting their issue
was passed later on the same day ; and the bonds were held
valid.

(d) Interpretation Act, 1889, s. 36 (3).

ii |. h

Si F !!

740

WTKBPBETATION OF STATUTES.

effect, by relation, from the first day of t

session. It foUowed that if a statute, passed

the last day of the session, made a previoui

innocent act criminal or even capital (a), all w!

had been doing it during the session, while

was still innocent and inoffensive, were liable

suffer the punishment prescribed by the statute (I

But to abolish a fiction so flatly absurd ai

unjust (c), 38 Geo. III. c. 13 enacted that ti

Clerk of ParUaments should indorse on every Ac

immediately after his title, the date of its passii

and receiving the Eoj al assent {d). This indo™

ment is part of the Act, and is the date of i1

commencement, when no other time is provid^c

But where a particular day is named for its coii

mencement, but the Royal assent is not given ti

a later day, the Act would come into operatia

only on the later day («).

(<•) See ex. gr. B. v. Tkurim, 1 Lev. 91 ; B. v. Bmlef, Busi
w B. 1.

(i) 4 Inst. 25 ; 1 Bl. Oomm. 70, note by Ohristian ; A.-O v
Pa«ier, 6 Bro. P. C. 486; Lalleu v. Holme,. 4 T. B. 660; an<
the anthorities cited in 1 Plowd. 79». Bee The Bri^ Am
1 Qallison, 63.

(e) IBI. Oomm., 70n.

(<0 Snp. pp. 7a-77.

(e) Burn v. Carvalho (1834), 4 Nev. & M. 893. Sec. 9,
Newspaper Libel and Bogistration Act, 1881, 44 & 45 Viot. c. 6o!
required printers to make certain returns before the 3lBtof July]
1881, yet it was not passed tdll the following a7th of August.

OOMMEKOEMEKT OF mSBATIOKS. 74,

When a BiU to oontinne an Aot „>•• k •
expire in the same se«Z^ ^^"'^ " *°

Boyal assent Jthe ITt h"'' '"'• "°''"« *''«
tinning Act takes .ffJl I ' '''^"'^' ^^' "O""
expJion. eSS S^t^restt':^^ f '''
person with any puni8hm«„+ T "^*°* "•y

Act between tuZt^S^fT^ "'^'"'^ °^*^«
passing of the lateXt) '"'" '^' *^^

Every statute passed since 1850 is a n„w a
and judioiaUy noticed. unlesVaTn.f ^ " ^''*
appears in the statuteir "^'^ "'''''"°''

(o) 48 Geo. ni. 0. 106.

f&) Interpretation Act, 1889, g. 9.

il

tSI

frtf

*

INDEX

ABBOTS, PRIOBS, AND OTHEIt PRELATES
ABJURATION OATH '"ELATES, meaning of, 601

construction of, 20 '

time for taking, 14

ABSENCE,

&«""' f "■ »*''»"' on behalf of one 24
limitation of actions, effect on, 29 '

service, from, meaning of, 176
summons on absent party, 22

ABSURDITY,

construction to avoid, 4, 406 446
presumption against, 358. 862-869

ABUSE OF POWERS, construction to prevent, 226-284

ACCEPT, meaning of, 97

ACCESSORY, meaning of, 477, 616

ACCOUNT, " on account of," meaning of, 471 491

ACKNOWLEDGMENT, meaning of, 68, 89, 188

ACT OP GOD, exception on account of, 175

ACT OP PARLIAMENT,

ancient times, in, form of, 452 453

"'^^^■X.tr '''*""' "'■ "' Co»s.„c™k; I„.„.

S^eX orpt^itio^n"^f,t89"^'™«™' '"^^ "'• ^«

private. See Pbivate Act.

public. See Pdblic Act.

repeal of. See Repeai,.

title of. See Title.

vrbi el orbi, not addressed, 817

ACTING OB PEACTISING, apothecary, as, 474

744

INDEX.

ACTION,

fit to be tried, what la, 171

limitations on itatutory right of, 384, 708-710, 718

meaning o(, 104, 108, 147, 240, 8«0, 411

new form of, effect of creation of, 340, 70S

statute repealed during pendency of, effect of, 780

statutory duty, for breach of, 706

ACTS DONE UNDER STATUTE, provisions protecting, 412, 41

ACTUAL MILITARY SERVICE, meaning of, 127

ACTUAL POSSESSION, meaning of, 68

ACTUALLY PRESENT, meaning of, 102

ADAPTATION, of meaning of words to the subject 109

ADDITION,

clerical omission, supply of, 25, 444

when not permissible, 20
ADDRESS, meaning'of, 118
ADJACENT, meaning of, 124

ADJUDGED BANKRUPT, meaning of, 889
ADMINISTER,

dmga, meaning of, 478, 490

illegal oath, meaning of, 89

ADMIRALTY, jurisdiction of court of, 88, 84, 62, 248, 278, 816 401
ADULTERATION,

meaning of, 90, 186

mem rea in case of, 88, 196

purchaser's predjudice, to, 491

unadulterated, selling as, 563
ADVANTAGE,

one's own wrong, of, avoidance of, 874

rule of law to one's, waiver of, 678
ADVOWSON, meaning of, 297, 298
AFFIDAVIT,

abnnt psity, on behalf of, 24

Bffls of Sale Act, 1878, under, 15

meaning of, 186, 141, 604

AFFIRMATIVE STATUTE, later often invaUdate. earUer, 284, 281

AGAINST, meaning of, 444, 470

AGENT,

or other, meaning of, 686

principal, as representing, 134-140, 162, 471, 498 494
AGGRIEVED PERSON, meaning of, 18, 840, 846, 8S4

AOREEMKNT 7«

violation of '.taint, i ~

^^ CLAIMS WHAT80EVP»

;^I' INTENTS AND PUKposeT"""* °' *^' ="«

ALMS, m«^g „, 5„ "^^D- ■»"".% of, 182

ALMSHOUSE, naeLntog of, 99„
ALTERATION

ANALooCTctrcZr''"'^

ANCIENT STATUTES K. ' **•

A^D .,^,^„, ^ „_ w^^^^n^r- '"''»»' 0'. "Maa

AWIMAL, Bwaatog of, 418. «7 „.
ANNOYANCE, „««^yi '*"■

^-0MAxwCz.r.„,,3,

ANY, „e«tog of, 160, 4,7,502

*Nr l^L? ™„,^^«°^VEE,.eani„gof,i«

ANY DWELUNO-HOUSE, ETC m- ■

ANY JUDGMENT OB OBDER T"""' "^

ANT JUSTICE, „e.ntog Of r"^°'"^

7M

INDBX.

ANY OFFICER, meaning of, 61

ANY ORDER, m'wnlng of, 80

ANY OTHER ARTICLE OR THING, meaning of, «»a

ANY OTHER MANNER, meaning of, 146, 481

ANY PART OF A DRAMATIC WORK, meaning of, 8M

ANY PERSON, meaning of, 62, 60a

ANY PLACE, meaning of, 666, IIB4

ANY QUAY OR WHARF, meaning of, 503

ANY QUESTION ARISING, moaning of, 168

ANY RIGHT OP COMMON, meaning of, 678

ANY WILL, meaning of, 81

ANYTHING DONE, meaning of, 27

APOLOGY, publication of, requieitee to, 211

APOTHECARY, acting and practising as, meaning of, 474

APPARENT POSSESSION, meaning of, 121

APPEAL,

meaning of, 104, 166
notice of, reasonable, 19
time for, bow fixed, 18

APPFABANCE, meaning of, 870

APPOINT, meaning of, 409

APPREHENSION, meaning of, 420

ARBITRATION, enlargement of time for, construction of, 142

ARISING, question, meaning of, 168, 164

ARTICLE, meaning of, 668, 696

AS FAR AS POSSIBLE, meaning of, 886

ASSEMBLE, meaning of, 81

ASSIGNMENT, meaning of, 218, 456

ASSIGNS, who are, 686, 687

ASSOCIATED WORDS, construction of, 571-682

ASSURE, meaning of, 97

AT LEAST, of time, meaning of, 607

AT THE KING'S PLEASURE, meaning of, 818, 614

AT THE OFFICE OF, meaning of, 419

AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION, meaning of 844

AOTHOB.con.en.o,.,h!7^;^

BAILIFF, p,,,„^

BAmNO,„e«,l„go7,4r
BALLOT ACT. ISTQ »- .

BANKING. *°°"""°«»" <".«>. eaa

Acta, oomtnioUon of. 3U
operaUons.ltolt.tio.^'S^aiaj.g
BANKRUPTCY

offenoa under Debton' Am i«»
Mizuni of good, uS elB^Jf^*' "'""tag of, «i
warrant of'SttTm.y fn e1^'','r" <"' »!
BANKRDPTCY ACTS ^ "'•'"■ »"

-^Pfsright,„d powers under, 8«, «, «„ ,,, „^

"Wditors powerg qnder MT
Crown, not binding on !Mfi
evMion of, 338 ' ^'

jurisdiction nnder, as8. 267 o,n

BARBATBY,n.e»ningo,,^'^™
BASTARDY, ^

Acts, constraotion of, gs9 27s

"nmons, issue and U^ie o? 17 00
BEDDING, m«„Ung of, laT'"'"

BEERHOUSE, meaning Of, ,07 „

BEGGAR, meaning of, iW

BEGINNING TO DEMOLISH „, •

BEING MARRIED „ "^^- """'"S of, 497
BET IPii. ™^"' """tog of, 667

BELIEF, erroneous, eJTect of, 178
BELONGING TO THE SOCIETY
BENEFICIAL CONSTRUCTION ™°'""'^'"' '*>

P"&rbe"gJ;e€Sfe"—
BENEFIT, r.e or., for .d..dna,U„„,,,^^

747

74«

anaex.

BETTINa, legtUtjr o(, 8(3

BEYOND THE SEAS, mewtag oj. », 80^09

BIOTOLE, u a Mintag*. 71. 481

BIOAMT,

Acta ((iliut, aotutmoUon of, 3(17

"MiM rni In e*M of, 178

BIU., PABLIAMENTABY,

"SJSSf„ro^ %"""■"»*" '^ ■»^« •"»• «>
oiiginally > nun ptUUon to tbe King, 79
BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT. 18811. c«n.truo«on of, M, «

^'"''mmf^l ^i^er^Xtt^f "■ "• >». '«. "». i-".

BOATS AND VESSELS. in.iuilng of. 887

BODY AND GOODS, forfeiture of. 618

BOBEA TEA. meulng of. 107

BOILER, meaning of, 181 n.

BONA FIDE,

t^'Sl^?' '"'°'~y «<> •tatate, eibot of, 178, 848, «6
- '*tt'at^^,S'. C"' — --y 'o "-"i of, M7. 869,
BONAM PABTEU, IN, oonetruotion in. 868-658
BOND OB OTHEB SPECIALITY, meaning of, 688
BOOK, meaning of, 181 n.
BOOTH, not a house or other tenement. 681
BOBBOW,

*'"'""'• "'?•<"'»''• op money, meanlni of. 318
power to. 633. 896 n.. (fee ' ^^" ' ""

BBEAKAGE. LEAKAGE AND DAMAGE. me«iing of. 867
BEEAKING. -~— a

bnrglariona. what is, 487
prison, meulng of. 176
BRIDGE, meaning of, 98. 180
BRITISH SHIPS, mear.'ng of, 168
BROKER, meaning of, 84

BROUGHT BEFORE THEM, meaning of 430 491
BUILDING,

erection of, powers as to. 67. 118

meaning of. 67, 119, 118. 137. 668, 691

Dron.

""1^ on, nmuiliig of, MO
BY-LAW,

•tatal ay, coo,i;rUon "rXw °"' •""• »»
B7 Vnw TE OP, meaning „,, ^^^ ^j^

CAPITAL OFFENCE, wluith, 787
OABBIAQE, mtanlng of, 71, 481
CABBIER, liabiltty of, 38
CABBY ON BUSINESS. „„.„i.g„,,„g,^

fc^^r^^riffK,

CASH IN, meaning of, 129

CAST AWAY OB DESTBOY, me«,ing of 581

CEBTIOBABI, r«nov.l of conviction to High Court h. ,

CHAMBEBS, when h " hou«." 71 "^ ^^^ "'' ^'' ^

CHANGE OF LANGDAOp'.. %.

CHAKOEABLE TO THE C s^ "**""'°''' '^' »«
CHABOES, °' °""™8 "'• " -

"trespeotive, when anthorised, m
statute. i»po«nR how con>bi^K8-m. m

740

7S0

nnntx.

OHABITABLE eVM-OBBa. mining d. M4

CHARITABLE TRUST. n«j;7oM48

CHARrTAI«,E U8E8 ACT. I7M. «n.Wu,ttoo .,, M. a„.a,«,

ClUllTER l-AUTY.

bn»ch of, jurWloUoa u to, 08

ooMtnictlon of, 41 ~ *'• "°

•tamp 00. 807
CHATTEL.

°>««>lng of. m, 471

penonJ, mmuiing of, 178

Talublo Mourily. or, moaning of, 471
CHILDREN, me»nlng of. log, 4fw

CIliCULABS, OR OTHERWISE, uicnlog of. (.90
CLAIM,

Sf °f*"°"' '■"• '""•nlng of, 84«
rigM. of, jurtificatioD of, I's

CLEARDAY3,meMitagof,«07

CLEAR YEARLY VALUE, m«aiog of. 70

CLERICAL ERROR, om.od.tlon of, 448

CLERK OP PARLIAMENTS. ina.,«tlon on A,, by. 740

COAL, meaning of, 478

CODIFYING AOT.oonrtrucUonof.47

COIN, pnymmt In, mamlng of, 901

COKE (LORD), ml« fo, InterpretaUon of. 89, 4M

C0MM™:L'J r '' ^-"^«-'.wHco.r89,740

COMMON LAW..tetuter...naotlng..ffootof 8
COMMON LODOINO.HOUSE, m««,lngof, 182
COMMUNIS EBSOB FAVIT Jt;«. .pp«e.ti„n of m
COMPANIES ACT8..on.t,uctionof,48.«
COMPANY,

INOBX.
COMI'KNSATION

COMPETENT TO msiWK, .„«„,„,„ „
COMl-UTATION oK TUf

7U

fl"n *«r

i,".inMt

V aUo TiMi,

CONDITION,

uawiing or, 140
•t»tutoryd.itj-(„„>
CONDUCT, „»hpp,| „

CONFiSKKrNU R ,,iir

978-279 ,
CONFISCATION, p^,„,„
CONFLICT. Seo lt„„..«,,,,, !
CONJECTURAL CONSTHir. ■■,

CON.UNCTION,.,Bjr..;r;r""'''''"'"''"'^
CONSENT. JURISDICTION BY .

OONSEQCENOPS „» "'^' l«»" »" give, 883, 6«

CONSISTENT AFFIRMATIVE ACTS .ff . .
CONSOLIDATION ACT 7 '^'''^' "*"»<". 2«»-81«
CONSTRUCTION ' """™°"''" °'' **' ">"

!fc""'',»™''*»n™ o«. 836-889

•Iteration of law how h"K«^«J- 88, 40. 64

burdon, impend, whore,1oi-««o

criminal statute, of, 462-001
Crown, as affecting, 244-2S4

extension of meaning, when allowable, 88, 123, 144, 146

r 46, SO,

762

IKDEX.

C0N8TROCTION— ron«ni«d.

external oireumstanoes, reference to, 47, 58

(nwmutioal. modifloation of, 86, 408

imperative or director; statute, of, 847-678

implication, by, 615-646

impoffiibiUty, not to create, 678-678

in bonampartma, fiS8-fi85

infavarem viUe, 462, 466

inconvenience to be avoided, 889-8S6

intention of legislature, according to, 86, 406-447 484

interimence with obligations to be avoided, 869-381

limited, when, 197-206

literal, when not followed, 86, 87

when to be followed, 88, 88
omission, power to supply, 448-446
oversight m statute, effect of, 83
penal law, of, 462-501
preamble, by reference to, 77-92
reasonable, to be, 889-856
rights Pnoroached upon, where, 501-530
statute, imposed by, eflfeot of, 641-562
strict, in geaeral to be followed, 94
tautological expressions, of, 658
technical language, of, 84
title of Act as modifying, 74, 76
unjust, to be avoided, 366-869
unreasonableness to be avoided, 389-366
usage, by reference to, 681-541
variation of language, in case of, 664-571
whole, as a, 38, 40, 64

'^°^'^^%PO^.j^f^EXPOSITIO EST OPTIMA ET FOB-
IISSIMA IN LEGE, appUcation of, 681

CONTEXT,

earlier Act, reference to, 61, 64, 642, 544

efflmination of, 36, 64-65

expired and repealed Acts, reference to 66

mpan matend, Acts not, reference to, 70, 544

later Act, construction of, use of, 64

rules and orders, use of, 66

similar Acts, reference to, 68

CONTINUING ACT, taltmg efleot of, 741
CONTEACT,

'°M6,M6*°'°™"''™' ^°' '°'P<»'°8> eOMtruction of, 610, 653-

ille^ acts, connected with, avoidance of, 688-706, 732

mterferpnoe with, to be avoided, 869-881 686

repesj of statute making illegal, effect of, 782

void by statute, effect of, 380, 381, 685-705

INDEX.

753

CONTBABY TO NATURAL EQUITY STA.n.
CONTBATONTION OP STATUTP ^u '^' °*°""' «»

CONTBOI,,

prp:r:sriri-r8f/-«"

CONVENIENCE,

presumption in favour of 8a9-Bm
statute commanding mattm ^™m.

CONVEYINO^ZZ^oTeeT °°""™°"""' »'■ ™

CONVICTION,
ovideneo, as, 80

felony, of, meaning of, 896
CO^ABTNEBSHIP, meaning Of, „.
COPYING, meaning of, 481, 491, 617 „

coiror^°^^^''----.~go,.7

"fMavit by, how made, 141

eZinarn"'o?SCS?;y27
meaning of, 617, 619 620^^ *
Pe"on,asa,110,i^*6^^««<

Ss°l"e°r-^?^-«S.8".6M
residence of, 115, 119 '^^ ***
COSTS,

Crown, against, 349, 252

executor, against, 408

if ttought fit, meaning of 282

^tX^"rn£rfy^« Of, 151,289

pSia»f:"btiirtS;jMo«.4io

statute allowing, coustruction of, 45 610
COUNTEBPEIT rorv

0O.NTY,mXTe«"'°"'"'^"'"^

crjYcrBrrr-----

I.S. '^^"^''^' meaning of, 686

764

INDEX.

COURT,

diBoretion of, meaning of, 151

jorigdiction of, itatutory provisions oa to, 46, 286-244

open, what in, 16

COUBT OF BECOBD, meaning of, 614

COWS, meaning of, 672

CBAFT (WHEBBY OB), meaning of, 687

CBEDIT, obtaining, meaning of, 196, 197

CREDITOR, meaning of, 118, 168, 867, 418

CRIMINAL CAUSE OB MATTER, meaning of, 184 n.

CRIMINAL STATUTE,

construction of, 176, 261-268, 462-601
waiver of, 684

CROWN,

exclusion of, implied, 244-264, 649
inclusion of, when, ^51-268
officers of, position of, 268, 264
penalty generally payable to, 8

CUI JUBISDICTIO DATA EST, EA QUOQUE CONCESSA
ESSE VIDENTUE, SINE QUIBUS JUBISDICTIO
EXPLICABI NON I'OTUIT, application of, 628, 624

CVILIBET LICET BENVNTIABE JVBI PBO SE INTBO-
DUCTO, application of, 678-687

CUMULATIVE PENALTIES, when given, 861-856

CUMULATIVE EEMEDIE8, provision for, 711

CUSTOM,

efieot of, 581-641

how tar affected by statute, 815, 820-828

CUSTOMS ACTS,

commodities mentioned in, how construed, 107
construction of, 480. 608-609
evasion of, to be avoided, 608
prohibited goods, landing of, 480
United States, in, construotion of, 609

CUTTING, indictnent for, 466

DAILY, includes Sunday, 611

DAMAGE,

collision, by, meaning of, 118
making good, meaning of, 174, 175
meaning of, 68

INDEX.

DANGEROUS ARTICLES. »„veyan«.oM82

UAliS, as part of Act, 77, 789, 740

DAY,

clear not h„ than, at least, 607

"■mm, presumption in favour of, 152 i,a
DEATH, ■ . ioa

DEBENTURE, statutory provisions as to, fil, 579
DEBT, meaning of, 89, 100, JOl 476

DEPrLTT,"''- ''''"'"^'''' '■'"™«™ "'• »«• «««
i^Jif AULT, wilful, meaning of, 04, 199

DEFECT,

^r^sSil?!''^'*"!'*'"'' ""'rtainment of, 48
^^I^ ^ ' contemporaneous existence of 48

DEFENDANT, as successful party, costs to, 249
DEFINITE^AND CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STOCK, meaning of,
DEUVEHY,

&f^l^^ " '™°''".>neaning of, 576
office, at the, meaning of, 419 ""''""'

DEMOLISH, meaning of, 497
DEPENDING, meaning of, 101

DEsZor"'"^' ^'""- '"'^ '° "^^«' "'' ^
iiiSBBTION, meaning of, 177

DESUETUDE, Scots Acts repealed by, 7S5 „

DETENTION, in charter party, meaning of, 41

DlSlr ™^'""' "'"-'"'^ »'■ «»
J«sui,AIM, meanmg of, 203, 389 n.
DISCLOSED, meaning of, 864
DISCRETION,

court, of, meaning of, 161

LlSgT^^-yr/B?' ""'• '''■ ^«*'««. «!-*«

DISPUTE^'-' "*? r°"™""^' -'■- P'™'-""- "^3-687
"loru It, meanmg of, 168, 242

DISTANCE, measurement of, construction of, 612

755

78fl

INDEX.

DISTRESS, moaning of, 151, 163

DOCKETING, aboUtion of, 29

DOCUMENT, meaning of, 472

DOMESTIC ANIMAL, meantog of, 474 n.

DOMICIL, foreign, exoIuBion of, 268, 275

DONE, meaning of, 184

DOWEK ACT, 1888, construction of 52, 6S

DRAFTSMAN, errors of, correction of, 88, 49, 149, 407, 447

DRIVER, meaning of, 496

DhUNKENNESS. See M»ss Bba.

DURING, meaning of, 892, 411

DUTY,

Acts imposing, liow construed, 601-616
implied, when, 623-646
power coupled with, 424-448

prescriptions affecting performance of a, distinguished from those
relatmg to a privilege oi' power, 648-678
DWELLING, meaning of, 119, 679

DWELLS OR CUtBIES ON BUSINESS^ meaning of, 680
DYING WITHOUT ISSUE, meaning of, 669

^^ "^rtf toTfre"^^^"™ ^CC//)tri^T, laws made with a

EARLIER ACT, reference to, 61

EASEMENT, meaning of, 65, 128 n.

EJVSDEM OmERIS, words and expressions, 671-603

ELECTION, candidate's powers at, 21

EMBEZZLEMENT, meaning of, 472, 491

EMPLOYED, meaning of, 498

EMPLOYMENT, in or about a shop, meaning of, 125

EMPOWERED, meaning of, 426

ENABLING statutes, when compulsory, 424-448

ENCLOSURE . CTS, construction of, 69, 546

ENCOURAGING meaning of. 489

ENDEAVOURING TO PROCURE, meaning of, 496

ENGLAND OB ELSEWHERE, meaning of, 267

INBEX.

767

EKGLI8H SUBJIim ABROAD, application of sUtute to, a* „
ENOBOS8MENT of BUI in P„U.„,„t, 75, ,«_ 73, ,3^ "^ ••• *» «•

ENLARGEMENT OP TIME, for awi^rd. meaning of 142
ENTERING OR BEING, meaning of, m
ENTERTAINMENT, meaning of, 574
EQUITY,

equitebie oonBtrucliion of statute, 447-461

riatutc eontrary to, effect of, 459-461

witnin tlH, meaning of, 460, 468, 469

EQUIVALENT TO VERDICT OF A JURY, meanine of 201
EQUIVOCATION, word, or pleases, of, effect o^ 86-39

'^^''"o^ff^^c'^.'ier"^^' ""^ '- '" ^ --'^-<' in statutory
ERROR, law, or fact, of, in statute, effect of, 544-547
ESTOPPEL, from benefit of enactment, 678-685
EVASION,

construction to prevent, 206-226, 850 508

evade, meaning of, 206, 218-225 '

sometimes allowed, 226, 840
EVERY,

^!S''?.''nT' ™'''"' '='<=•• meaning of, 157 163
new buildmg, meaning of, 668 ""''""' ^"^
person, inhabitant, etc., meaning of, 121, 164, 821,861
EVIDENCE,

fresh, meaning of, 152
satisfactory, meaning of, 167
truly given, meaning of, 416

EXCEPTION, or saving clause, construction of 281
EXCESS OP JURISDICTION, presumption against, 255
EXCLUSION, of class of penons, construction of, 168
EXECUTION OF OFFICE, meaning of, 164, 165
EXEMPTION, sUtute granting, construction of, 507, 508 616-S17
EXPIRED ACT, '

in^anma^en,!, consideration of, 47 66 66
operation of, 727-788 "', ■• 1 , 00, 00

EXPOSED FOR SALE, meaning of, 474

BXPSESSIO VNIVS EST EXCLVSIO UTPnnrv

tiou of, 548, 678 i^^i^uu^iu ALlhDIVS, applica-

TBS

«OBX.

EXPRESSUM FACIT CESSASE TACITUM, appUottion of, 885
EXTERNAL CIBCUMSTANCES, coniideration of, M-47
EXTSA TEBRITOBIVM JUS DICENTI IMPUNE A'O.V

PAIIETUS, application of, 3*6
EXTRACTING SPIBITS, meaning of, 188
EXTRADITION, construction of Acta relating to, 44, 4S, 407, 420

FAIR PRICE, meaning of, 139

FALSE PRETENCES, meaning of, 492, 498

FALSE SIQNALS, obstruction by makmg, 489

FANCY BREAD, meaning of, 481

FATAL ACCIDENTS ACTS, construction of, 261, 27S, 816

FEE SIMl'LE, meaning of, 106, 169-171

FEMININE, included in mascnline, 604

FINAL JUDGMENT, meaning of, 97 »., 477

FINE,

imposition by implication of, 706

meaning of, 614

FINE ARTS COPYRIGHT ACT, 1862, construction of, 60
FIT,

think, meaning of, 424, 489-441

to be tried, meaning of, 171

FIXTURES, meaning of, 178

FOOD, adulteration of, meaning of, 68, 186

FOB OR IN NAME OF, meaning of, 471, 491,

FOR SAFE CUSTODY, meaning of, 472

FOREIGN ATTACHMENT, application of iiro^^isions for, 66

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACTS, construction of, 44, 494

FOREIGNER, statute how far applicable to, 110, 111, 263-279, 407
408

FORFEITURE, judgment of, meaning of, 618, 614

FORGED INSTRUMENT, meaning of, 146

FORM, STATUTORY,

interpretation by reference to, 66

interpretation of, 66, 610

observance of. See Formalitibs.

FORMALITIES, statutory, observance of, 14-16, 182, 168 272 273
646, 646, 695, 696

niBix. 769

FOBMED, pwtnenhip, meaning of, 108

FORTHWITH, rnanlng of, 608

POUB.^raaEE, OB TWO H003EH0LDEBS, meaning ot, 621

FBACTION OP A DAY, notice of, 600

FBAME BENT, deduction .'or, construction of, 887

FBADD, meaning of, 196

FBEQUENTING, meaning of, 474

FBESH EVIDENCE, moaning of, 162

PBOM,

loss of life, notice as from, 482

meaning of, general!;, 606

thenceforth, meaning of, 889

FRUSTRATE, void and of none effect, moaning of, 872
FUBIOUS, riding or driving, what is, 496

CAME,

qualification for killing, 20

taking, meaning of, 490, 492

onlawful pursuit of, what is, 420
GAMING, suflering to go on, meaning of, 489
GAS, meaning of, 107

GENDEB, masculine includes feminine, 604
GENERAL ACT, construction of, 818-829
GENERAL ALTERATIONS, presumption against, 149
GENERAL RULES, consideration of, 65, 815, 610
°^^^S,^J^°^^^' '"•e'Tretation of, 88, 66, 109, 149, 315, 464,

''™iSi?8lS''""^''^' '^'''' DEROOANT, appUcation
GENEBI PES SPECIEU DBliOaATUR, application of, 583
GENERIC WORDS, following more specific, effect of, 583-603
GENUS, statute dealing with, appUcation of, 146, 801, 314-829
GIFT, DELIVERY, OR TRANSFER, meaning of, 576
GIN, meaning of, 107 n.
GIVEN,

notice, sufficiency of, 64

relief ordered to be, application of, 496

760

IKDBX,

41

GOOD OHABACTEB, mwuiing o(, 471

GOOD FAITH,

act done In, oontni; to italnt*, eCbct of, 178, 41S
lUtatory diKntioD or power, in earn of, 837, 869, 418

GOODS, meaning of, 70, 112, 187, 14S, IBS, 878, 88B

GRAIN, meaning of, 107 n.

OBAMMAB, conrimoUon aooording to, 8, 88, 96, 406

GROSS, rigbta in, in relation to riglita of eommon, 678

"UILTY MIND. S«U«l«»BiA.

GUN, USING, what i«, 493

GtJNPOWDE R, caniage by raUway of, 182

HACKNEY CARRIAGE, meaning of, S8fl
HALF A TEAR, meaning ol, 604

^*^™If' "°* '" Influence interpretation, 7, 10, 11, 866-369.
Too— 401

HAVING,

or conveying, meaning of, 581
or Iteeping, meaning of, 681

HEADING, of Beotion, importance of, 92

HEARD AND FINALLY DETERMINED, meaning of, 287

HELD, of a hoaee, meaning of, 668

HEREDITAMENT, meaning of, 691

HIGHWAY,

cattle on, proTieion as to, 67

paaaing upon, meaning of, 125
HIMSELF, meaning of, 189, 140
HISTORY, of statute, to be considered, 88-47
HOG, meaning of, 467
HORSE, meaning of, 467, 571, 572
HOSPITAL, meaning of, 99

HOUSE,

cbambers as a, 71
inhabited, meaning of, 71, 697
place, .IS a, 674, 697
unlicensed theatre, aa a, 691

HOVERING ACTS, reference to, 272 n.

OTDEX.

761

IDIOT, non-naponiibility of, 177
1^ ™^^ ™™K FIT, „«u„g „,. ,«, ,„_
ONOBANCE, of ULgalUy, eftc of. 181, 7 .
ILLEGALITY,

IMMEDIATELY, meudng of, 606
IMMOBAL ACT, mewing of, 48«
IMMUNITY, how far toplied, 648
'"'"^"SSe68?""«^"0''«. -.taction to avoid, 869-881

mtZT^ "^*^"^^'' '""■■'™°«'»> o'. "'-«8

IMPLIED DUTIES

rwPT T^r. 5r™"^' *™'°<^ »« •« graoted, 628-646

operative, wlieo, 381-296, 72a 781 ■am
penal etatute, in, 829^ ^ ' ""
repugnant enactment, in case of, 281 28a oo«

srMTrrror::;-''""*'- '^ --'■ --

IMPROPER NAVIGATION, meaning of, 124
IN ANY OTHER MANNER, meaning of, 146

''''^'^'aS?66!■f7T°^■ '"^™-P«™ "^'t -.uaion of,
IN CASH, meaning of, 129

IN DISPUTE, meaning of, 168

IN FAD1.T, meaning of, 66

IN FAVOBElt VITX, construction, 462, 466

762

INDKX.

IN f^^^DeULBaiS PAOIT, QUI SALVIS VBRBIH LEQla.

IN GOOD FAITH. Su UoKt FiDi.

IN OB ABOUT A SHOP, mMDing o», MS

IN fABl^ilATEBIA, ootutrnoUon of •fatato which b, 13, ««,

IN BE8PECT OF, niMuilng of, 688 n.

IN BEBVICB, SOLDIEB, mwuUng of, 187

IN WBITINO, m«uilngof,847

INCIDENTS, nemaury, inoluilon in itatuto of, 821, 838

INCL08UBE ACT3, ooiutruoUon of, 848, 837 n.

INCOME, meaning of, 806, 679

INCONSISTENCY, conatnicUon to avoid, 4, 380-384. See tf/.o

INCONVENIENCE,

modification of language to avoid, 408

presumption againit conitiuotion producing, 889-866, 686
INCOBPOEATION,

Act of Parliament, by, meaning of, 107

body, of a, by implication, 817, 819

general Act, of, into epecial one, 816, 830, 833, 860

•tatute on one subject, by, of pioTiaioni of another, 814, 820
INCOBEECT WEIGHT, liability in respect of, 198
INDEFEASIBLE, meaning of, 18
INDICTMENT,

information not included in, 37

meaning of, generally, 669

INDIBECTLY, meaning of, 496

INDOBSEMENT, meaning of, 188, 180

INELIGIBILITY, of officer, construction of, 163

INFANT, capacity of, 168, 168, 166

iNFEBIOB COUBT, statute giving jurisdiction to, 235-244

INFOBMATION,

indictment not included in, 37

meaning of, generally, 261, 868 n.

INHABITANT, meaning of, 114-117, 131, 122, 246
INHABITED DWELLING-HOUSE, meaning of, 116

INDEX. 763

IKJDBIOUSI-y AFFECTED, mtuiiig oj, 171. 173 ».
INJUSTICE,

oonjtjuotlon Involving, tfbot ol, 7, 18, 1», 88S-Mt
modlAMtlon of language to mid, 4M
pmumptlon agnlntt, 886-863, 866-86S
INSPECT, uuHuiiiig of, 617
INSTAKTLY, meulng of, 808
INSTITUTED, mewing of, 101 n,, 103 ».
INSTRUMENT,

guuing, of, meitning of, 888
Mlmon Mtohing, for, maanlng of, 889
INdTUUMENTd, itatuto reguUUng, oou.truotion of. 810-618
INTENTION,

change or vwrlatlon of Unguage, In oaae of, B64-671
cooHquencea not Intended, exclusion of. 9. 10 148
expreiiion of. Importance of, 3, 10

Wel'SJ; 671*° ^ '°"°'"^' *•■ **• ■*»• »»■ "0. IM, 1831 164,
modification of language to meet, 148, 406-447
none expreiud, interpretation where, 3, 18 28
word! going be.vond, how to be treated, 7, 9, 10, 20, 148

INTENTS TO ALL. meaning of. 683

INTEBESTED IN A CONTRACT, meaning of, 496

INTERESTS, a. di.tlngul.hed from right., 686 n.

INTERMEDDLE, meaning of, 386

INTEBNATIWAL LAW, p,..umptlon agalnat violation of, 363-

INTEBPLEADER ACT, held not to bind the Crown, 380
INTERPOLATION,

penal Act, in case of, 483

word., of, how far permiBMble, 406, 409, 410 448
INTEBPBETATION,

aanciated words, of, 571-683

<!iuulan genms, 588-608

fundamental rule of, 1, 4. 11

general word., of, 88, 66, 683-608

«n ionamfartan, B68-568

incidental matter., of, 8

making law a. dUtinguiahed from, 11

obSjf 1 1^^*™^ ""^ primarily to be taken, 1, 8-8, 18

statute, of. See CoMTaDCTiOK ; Statote

words of statute, of, generally. Sea WoEUs.

impoMd by statute, effect of, 643

MKaoeofY •■KxuTKm tbt chahi

(ANSI ond ISO TEST CHAKT No. 2)

X-1PPLED IIVHGE Ini

1653 Eoit Mam Straal

RochMUf, Htw Yofk 1*609 USA

(716) *e2 -0300 -Phone

(716} 288- 5989 -Fq«

764

INDEX.

INTEEPBETATION ACT, 1889.

See 52 * 68 Vict. c. 68 in tlic lable of Statutes.
INTOXICATING LIQUOR, sale of, 28
IS WITHIN THE LIMITS, meaning of, 563
ISSUE, meaning of, 97
ISSUE, WITHOUT, meaning of, 659

IT SHALL BE LAWFUL, oonstrnction of, 429-485, 448 n.
JEWISH DISABILITY, construction of, 20, 662
JOINT PENALTY, infliction of, 862-366
JUDGE, meaning of, 808

JUDGMENT,

final, meaning of, 97 n.
life or member, of, 61"
order, or, meaning of, ^86 .

JUDICATURE ACT, 1876, construction of, 49, 289, 819
JUDICIAL DUTIES, statute giving, construction of, 688
JUDICIAL POWERS,

Act giving, effect of, 487-448, 628-646

K£j1,'LtcS.'''™'' " ^"'^'^' "^-'- "'• «'«. «««

JURISDICTION,

alteration of, oiTect of, 236-244

condition, precedent to, observance of, 678-687

consent cannot give, 688 '

creaMon of new, construction in case of, 240-244, 517-622

established, presumption against interference with, 286-240

SL'J ■ P"!"'»E,«<'° against intention towards, 266-262

impliedly conferred, when, 628-646

taken away, when, 237-240
Judpnents Extension Act, 1868, under 618
legislative, extent of, 265
statute conferring, construction of, 807, 318, 616-680, 628-646

JUST AND CONVENIENT, meaning of, 151

JUST AND EQUITABLE, meaning of, 692

JUSTICE. See INJDSTICE.

JUSTICES,

any or the nearest, meaning of, 160
inquiry into indictable oiTences by, 603

''^'"'*/"P°'^™°8' construction of, 286, 289, 241, 608, 624, 639,

041, 644-646
two or more, meaning of, 646

INDEX.

765

KEEPING OUT OF THE WAY, ol debtor, meaning of, 188

KINO'S PLEASUEE, punishment at, meaning of, 614

KING'S PBINTEE, record o( statutes printed by, 76

KNOWLEDGE,

guilty. See Mens Kea.

knowingly, interpretation of, 197, 490, 666, 598

servant 8, as that o( master, 137

statutory provisions, of, presumption of, 739

LABOUR, meaning of, 684

LAnOUBEB, meaning of, 684, 686

LAND, meaning of, 66, 66, 647, 672, 604

LAND TAX, lUbility tor, 622 n.

LANGUAGE,

ambiguity of, construction of, 86-89
interpretation with reference to subject-matter of, 96-128
imambiguous, may be determined by usage, 631
variation of, effect of, 663-671

LAST PLACE OF ABODE, meaning of, 269

LATEB ACTS, in pari materiot examination of, 64

LAWFUL,

cause, necessity of, 642

excuse, what is, 486

it shall be, construction of, 424, 429-486, 440, 448 n.

purpose, meaning of, 590

sense, words to be understood in, 663-556

LAY HANDS, on a priest, meaning of, 36

LEAVING CATTLE, meaning of, 666

LEOES EXTRA TEBBITOBIUM NON OBLJff/JTVr, applica-
tion of, 266

LEOES POSTESIOBES PlilOBES CONTBABIAS ABBO-
QANT, application of, 281

LEGISLATURE,

excess of jurisdiction by, presumption against, 256-262
jurisdiction of, extent of, 265

LESS THAN, meaning of, 410, 607

LETTER,

meaning of, 596
threatening, sending of, 488

LEVEL CROSSING, keeping of, 686

766

INDEX.

LKX NON COaiT AD /.VP0S.SM7£/.I, application of, 673-67,s

LEX PLUS LAUDATOR QUANDO JtATIONJC I'ltOIl ITUJI
apphcatiou of, 559

LIABILITY, implication of, 705-727

LIFE OR MEMBER, .TUDOMENT OF, meaning of, 61i)

LIGHT AND UN.IUST, of scales, meaning of, 167

LIKELY TO BE, chargeable, meaumg of, 5fli2

LIMITATION OF ACTIONS,

abseitce beyond the seas and, 29

ambassador, in case of, 264

Crown, in case of, 249

foreigner, as afTecting, 278

statutes as to, contraction of, 11, 12, 264, 847, 408, 503

strict construction in case of, 503

waiver of benefit of, 678

LOAN,

meaning of, 224
parochial relief, of, 496

LOCAL ACT, construction of, 72, 293, 810, 527-fiSO
LOCAL LAW,

interpretation by reference to, 540, 541

modification by statute of, 328

LOCOMOTIVE, meaning of, 481

LODGER, meaning of, 121 n.

LOGICAL CONSEQUENCES, implied enactments as to, 615, 619
621-628 . . , - ,

LOP, trees, meaning of, 100

LORDS, exemption of, 146

LUGGAGE, interpretation of, 665

LUNACY,

mens rea in case of lunatic, 184 n., 177

removal of lunatic to hospital, authority for, 26

service on lunatic, failure to pro-.-lde for, 28

will of lunatic, validity of, 156

MADE,

continue, to, meaning of, 476
meaning of, generally, 55 n., 668

MAGISTRATE,

order of deceased, discharge of, 26
qualification lor, 21. Sec also Justicbs.

INDEX.

767

MAGNA CHARTA, conntraotion of, M, 146

MAGNATES AND NOBLEMEN, who are, 570

MAIMED S'JLDIEBS, mean-ngot, 421

MAKE A REVOLT IN A SHIP, meaning of, 176

MAKING GOOD DAMAGE, meaning of, 174 175

MANDATORY ENACTMENTS, ooaBtruotion'of, 647-673

MANOR,

map, as evidence, 167

royalty, in combinatior with, 602
MARGINAL NOTE, importance of, 76

MARKET ACT, application to town tailt after passing of, 480
MARRIAGE ACT, 1835, constraction of, 261
MARRIAGE SETTLEMENT, meaning of, 180
MARRIED, meaning of, 667
MARRIED WOMAN,

action by and against, 80, 126, 168

capacity of, 154, 168

meaning of, 126, 257

MARRY, construed in two senses in same section, 557, 558
MASCULINE, includes feminine, 604
MASTER, liability for acts of servant of 187
MAY,

cases on, 448 n.
must, as, 424-429
shall, as, 486-489, 707
MEASURE,

distance, of, rule as to, 612

enactments as to sale by, application of, 259
MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, meaning of, 130
MEETING, meaning of, 81, 166
MEMBER, meaning of, 180

''''''Sd,°49 ""^^^lAMENT. intentions of, not to be con.
MENS SEA,

absence of, interpretation with reference to, 193-197

bigamy, m case of, 178

bona fide, effect of, 178-181, 185, 198-197

criminality of act notwithstanding absence of, 185-188

denned, 177, 195

drunkard, in case of, 178

guilty mind, importance in criminal law of, 177

incapacitated person, in case of, 177

offence, as ingredient of, 177-197

768

INDKX.

MERCANTILE AGENT, meaning of, 161, 162
METALS, meaning of, 601

MILITARY OR NAVAL SERVICE, moaning of, 494
MINES AND MINERALS,

lead mines not included in lands and coal mines, S72

reservation of minerals, conHtruction of, 170

working of, restriction on, 59

MINISTERIAL DDTIES, statute imposing, construction of, 4:17,
645, 710

MISAPPREHENSION, legislature, by, of law or foot, effect of, M

MISCHIEF,

statute, of, within, meaning of, 460, 466, 478
statutory powerD to he exercised so as to avoid, 630

MISDEMEANOUR, what breaches of statute constitute a, 706, 723
724.

MISTAKE,

statute, in, construction in case of, 544, 548
effect of, 38-35
emendation of, 446

MODIFICATION,

language of statute, of, how far permissible, 406-443
mistake of legislature, in case of. See Mistake.
omissions, by supplying, 443-447, 482

MONEY, meaning of, 688, 589

MONOrOLY,

Bank of England, of, protection if, 212. 218

statute establishing, construction of, 515

value, meaning of, 101, 102

MONTH, meaning of, 102, 604, 606

MOTIVE, guilty, absence of, effect of, 196

MULTIPLICITY OF WORDS, construction in case of, 61)6-560

MULTIPLY VOICES, conveyance to, effect of, 874

MUST, may as, 424-429

NAVIGATION,

by-laws as to, what authorised, 525

improper, what is, 124

navigating withm limits of port, meaning of, 668
NEAREST,

justice, T7ho is, 150

way, wha' is, 612

INDEX. 769

NECESSARY INCIDENTS, attechment to statute of, 815-828
NEEDLESS MIBCIUEl', powers granted by statute not to encourage,

NEGATIVE ACTS, statute involving, 285
NEGLIGENCE, meaning of, 124
NEW JURISDICTION,

enactment creating, to be construed strictly, 617-iiaO

presumption against creating, 235-244

NEW STREET, what constitutes n, 867 n.

NEW THINGS, extension of statutes to, 144, 477-484

NEW TRIAL, in County Court, power to onjor, 518

NEWSPAPER,
meaning of, 500
puolication encouraging to murder in, 489

NEXT,

appointed, meaning of, 14
sessions, meaning of, 344, 664

NO ACTION SHALL BE BBOUOHT, moaning of, 272, 380
NOBLEMAN, who is, 575

NON EST INTBBPBETATIU, SED DIVJNATIU, QUJE

BECEDIT A LZri'iJ^, application of, 457
NON-OBSERVANCE,

forms and conditions prescribed, of, effect of, 649-673

statutory provisions, of, wlien excused, 678-687

NON-PEBFOBMANCE, of statutory duty, remedy in case of, 705-727

NON-USAGE, effect of, 735-738

NOSCUNTVB A SOCIIS, application of, 674

NOT LESS THAN, meaning of, 607

NOTICE,

meaning of, 54
validity of, 185, 186, 188

XOVA CONSTITVTIO FVTUBIS FOUMAM IMPONERE

DEBET, NON PBjETEBITIS, application of, 881, 382
NOW OB HEEEAFTER, meaning of, 888

NOXIOUS,

drug, meaning of, 478, 490
trade, what is, 588

NULL AND VOID, meaning of, S72

I-S. 49

770

IIWEX.

OATH,

abjuration. Sea Amdbatioh Oath.
meaning of, 604

OBJECT OP ACT,
consideration of, 148

presumption against alteration of law beyond, 148
OBLIGATION,

implied from concession of privileges, when, 683-637

presumption against interference with, 860-S81
OBSCENE, meaning of, 195

OBSERVANCE, of conditions, when excused, 078-687
OBSOLETE STATUTE, effect of, 78S-788
OBSTBUCTION, meaning of, 177, 489. 188
OCCASIONED BY NEGLECT Olt DEFAULT, moaning ot, 46
OCCUPIED, meaning of, 19!, 868

OCCUPIER, meaning of, 116, 120, 121, 128, 129, 246, 598
OFFENCE,

meaning of, 352

offender, meaning of, 551

same, meaning of, 159

two or more offenders, imposition of penalties in ease of, 351-356
OFFENSIVE BUSINESS, ETC., interpretation of, 688
OFFICER,

eligibility presumed to appointment of, 62

special powers conceded to, 164
OMISSION,

accidental, in statute, effect of, 482

act done, included in, 184

meaningless and re]-iignant words, of, 419

non-incorporation of earlier Act, effect of, 80, 588

penal statute, in, effect of, 482

proclamation, in, effect of. 469

statute, in, how dealt with, 26, 29-81

power to supply, 407, 448-446, 482
ON ACCOUNT OF, meaning of, 491
ON THE MASTER'S APPEARANCE, meaning of, 870

ON THE TRUE FAITH OF A CHRISTIAN, oath, conrtruction
of, 662

ONCE IN SIX MONTHS, meaning of, 609
OPEN,

court, meaning of, 15

inspection, for, meaning of, 164

INDEX.

771

OPENED, KEPT OB USED FOR BETTINO. meaning of, 599

OPTIMA KST LEGUM tUTEBPBES CONSVETUDO, «npll.
cation of, 681 ' "^

OB, when equivalent to and, 8S, 431-434
OBDEB, meaning of, 80, 868 n.
OBDEBED, meaning of, 496
ORDINABY LCOGAGE, meaning of, 686
OTHEE,

agent, meaning of, 686

article or thing, meftning of, 698

building, meaning of, 660, 696

buainesa, meaning of, 688

cattle, meaning of, 603

charges, meaning of, 687

craft, meaning of, 687

instrument, meaning of, 680

labourer, meaning of, 686

manner, meaning of, 481

metals, meaning of, 6C1

obstruction, meaning of, 688

person, meaning of, 811, 684, 68S

personal estate, meaning of, 689

place, meaning of, 697

prelate, meaning of, 601

product, meaning of, 687

royal^, meaning of, 601, 603

sohoof, meaning of, 687 n.

Bpecialt;, meaning of, 90

than land, meaning of, 691

water, meaning of, 603

work, meaning of, 694

OTHERS,

having any spiritual, etc., living, meaning of, 60
having power to take indictments, meaning of, 608

OTHERWISE, meaning of, 658 n.

OUSTING JUEISDICTION, presumption against, 386-240

OUT OF ENGLAND, meaning of, 268

OVERSIGHT IN STATUTE. See Mistake ; Omission.

OWN PROFIT, meaning of, 864 ■ '

OWN WRONG, liabiUty for, 367

OWNER, meaniD" of, 139

OYER AND TEaMINEE, COUET OF, meaning of, 608

772

INDEX.

FAFIST, taking of abjuration oath by, U, 30

PAIll UATEBiA, comtniotion ot ilatuta in, 63, 4S8, S71

PARISH, moaning ot, 818

PABISH OFFICER, lupplylng goods, 887, 498

I'ARK, troipaulnR on, Bie

FARLIAMENT,

bill in, history of, 73, 78, 788, 740

olerk of, duty of, 740

court cannot question authority of, 373

everybody presumed to have knowlsdgo of act of, 789

oath by member of, 90

rolls, entry on, 79, 78

session of, duration of, 789

PAROCHIAL BELIEF, meaning of, 577

PART,

meaning of, 860

repeal of part of statute, 738 „ , , „„

statute partly exceeding jurisdiction of legislature, cfTect of, 2J7

PART PEBFORMANOE OP CONTRACT, bpocifio performance

of, 4M, 864
PARTICULAR EXPRESSIONS, meaning of some, 608-614
PARTNERSHIP, Companies Act, 1862, and, 103

PARTY,

chargeable, meaning of, 68, fill, 513
meaning of, generally, 105, 250

PASSING,

Act of, date of, 77, 789

proclamation of, 788

highway, npon, meaning of, 135
PAST OFFENCES. Set Beteospeciive Opebatiok.

PAYMENT OF MONEY,

enforcement of statutory duty as to, 711

PENAL ACT,

act excusable, operation where, 176

construction of, generally, 462-501

expiry before conviction of, effect of, 728

implied repeal in, 829-888

limitation of actions under, 584

jiieru rea in case of, 177-197

non-usage, effect of, 788 ^

repeal of, pending proceedings, 728-782

PENAL LIABILITY, for act of servant, 187, 187-198

INDEX.

T78

128-888, 840, 848, 851, 8S3, SOS,
, eUeot a(, 880, ew, 690

PENALTY,

conntruotioa of, 167, 800, &~

46fi, 696
contnwt, atUcheil to making

Crown't right to, 8

implied repeal when penalty altorea in later «tatuto, a<)a
joint or Beveral, when, 8t>l-866

PENDING 80IT,

elTuct of alteration of law on, 894, 7-29-782

meaning o(, 101
PEOPLE, KINGS, PRINCES, AND, meaning ol, fi77

PEBFOFMANCE, , ^ , „,„ ,„^

condition impoied by utatute, of, when excuBod, 678-e«i
pre«oripti-.ja aa to public dutiei, of, when direc',jry, 659

PERIODICAL PEBI^'OBMANCE, statute imposing, conntruclion
of, 609

PEnMISSIVE WORDS, effect of , 434-429

PERSISTENT CRUELTY, moaning of, U90

PERSON,

all perflons, meaning of, 166
corporation as, 110, 578, 618
every, meaning of, 134, 861

cood character, of , meaning of , 475

SZingot,lenerLlly, lOsTllO, 111, 164, 217, 821, 879, 471, 667.

604
other, meaning of, 585
so offending, meaning of, 48b, 496

PERSONAL ACT, construction of, 820, 627-580

PERSONAL CHATTELS, meaning of, 178, 589

PERSONAL ESTATE, meaning of, 50, 639

PERSONAL LUGGAGE, meaning of, 666

PERUSE, meaning of, 617

PETITION, prcaenting of, meaning of, 41b

PEW, allotment of, 169

PILOT, qualification fc 18

PIRACY, meaning of, 96, 122, 468, 480, 481

PLACE, _ ^^

meaning of, generally, 586, 599
place for betting, meaning of, 590
place of abode, moaning of, 117, 118, 269
place out of England, mean'og of, 268
public, meaning of, 492, 574

774

INDEX.

PLANT, mtwilng of, im

PLEADINO, lorm of, coiwtruction o(, S8

PLURAL, ainguhr and, 804

TOLICY OF INSURANCE,

chftttol or valuable leourity, whether, 409
conntniction of, SIS

rOLICY, PUBLIC. See PuBUC Poiiov.

K)OR LAW,

Act! relating to, conttniction of, 8B7

Kttlemcnt, coDstruotion of, 316

■uipcnsion of order for roiuovnl, meaning of, 400

POPULAR MEANING, intorpretntlon acconliiig to, 8, 98

POSSESSION,

land, of, meaning of, 68

meaning of, generally, 188, 390, 871, 409, 48S-487, S81

lerrant, by, 313

taking fi-om, what ii, 486

POST OFFICE, " on behalf of the," meaning of, 498, 494

POWER, ahaU have, meaning of, 438

POWERS,

abuse of, oonatmotion to avoid, 336-384
liompulaoiT, oonatmotion of, 617
Implied, wherein, 838-648
statutory, oonatruction of, S17-S80, 636

PRACTICABLE SPEED, meaning of, 182

PRACTICE. Seo Pkocibcek.

PRATER BOOK, oonatmotion of, 60, 585-687, 647

PREAMBLE, of statute, importance of, 77-92

PREFERRED, indictment, meaning of, 108

PREJUDICE OP PURCHASER, meaning of, 491

PREMISES, meaning of, 333

PREROGATIVE ROYAL, atatutes understood not to affect, 244-'i.';4

PRESENCE,

meaning of, 14, 21
meeting, at, meaning of, 165

PRESENT BIGHT, meaning of, 872

INDEX.

rs

PRESOMPTION,

»bturiltT, .gianit, SOe-HM , . ^ --,

nbuMorpowwiconlerred, •lialMt,M6-5»4

a<tontion ot prevloun Uw, unalnit, 1«, !18ii-M4, WO

ohulge of langtiaROt from, 66

conifitencyol«tiituW, infttvoiirot, 3H0

conteiniioriineom detccta, thiit lcRl»liitlon .Unit with, 46, 40

crcAtlon o( now jurlndiotlon, ii((ulii»t. 'i41-a44

Crown, inoluilon o(, agalint, 'i44-'i04

enoroaohmont on tlghU, a(!iiln«t, Ml-MO

evulon, agslnit Intontlon to nUow, iOO, HjO

oiosu of jurlndlcUon.ttgiilniit IntcnUun to create, 255-aii

impairing ot oHiRntionB, ngninut, 860-881

lnconil»tonoy, againiit, SHO

inconvenlonco, npniiiHt, )W9-856

iniu«tl-5, aRalniit, 11.16-1)69

international law, violation ot, against, a62-i7J

omterof olil juri«ilietion, BKainst, 1J1I5-2HH ,,,oir7

principle" of genc^ral application, against overriding o(, 149. 107

repugnancy, against, 'iHO

retroipeotlvooperation, against, 860, 881-8a8

same sense attached to same language, that. 66, 009, 660

taking advantage of own wrong, against, 870

unreaaonableness, against, 889-1)06

PRICE, fair, what Is, 129
PRIEST, wounding in street of. 8S
PRISON, in, meaning of, 088

PRIVATE ACT, _ ^,,

censtruotion of, 72, 281, 027, 818

Darliamentary history of, reference to, 01, OUB

Sowei givW^by, construction of, 280, 281, 027-080

public Act incorporated in, repeal of, 26

repeal by, ettect of, 828
PRIVATE REMEDIES, implication of, 706-727
PBIVATOBUM CONVENTIO JVRI PVBLICO NON DEIIO-
a AT, application of, 682

PRIVILEGES, , -,1= Bir AOA MR

Act conferring, how construed, "IS-S". 626-646
obligations impliedly accompanymg, when, oai)-646

PROCEDURE,

alteration of, effect ot, 400

Crown, as affecting, 202, 208

foreigner, as affecting, 278-279

retrospective operation on, 897-405

rules of, power to make, construction of, 017-Oii

waiver of, 680
statutorily prescribed, adherence to, 816, 708

776

INDEX.

PROCEEDING INSTITUTED, meaning of, 101 n.

FBOGLAMATION OP STATUTE, In ancient timea, 788

PROCURE, endeavooring to, meaning of, 49S

PRODUCT, meaning of, 687, 688

PROHIBITED aOODS, what are, 480

PROHIBITION, b; statute, effect on contract of, 685

PROMULGATION OF STATUTE, never neceBnary, 788, 789

PROPERTY,

grant by statute of, efiEiect of, 626
mi,aning of, generajly, 128, 270
suit respecting, what is, 24
reooverM, meaning of, 24

PROPRIETOR, agent of, meaning of, S14

PROSECUTION INSTITUTED, meaning of, 101 n.

PROTECTION, of act done under statute, 418

PROVISIONS, meaning of, 96

PROVISO, construction of, 281, 288

PUBLIC ACT,

incorporated in private Act, effect of, 26

wliat is, 741

PUBLIC BENEFIT, accord with, as governing interpretation of

statute, 2
PUBLIC BUILDING, meaning of, 492
PUBLIC COMPANY, meaning of, 147

PUBLIC DUTY,

breach of, remedies for, 706-727

performance of, statutory prescription of, 669
PUBLIC GRIEVANCE, prohibition by statute of, effect of, 706
PUBLIC PLAGE, meaning of, 492, 666
PUBLIC POLICY, statute passed on grounds of, construction of,

681,706
PUBLIC PURPOSES, private statute giving powers for, construction

of, 627 I

PUBLIC REFRESHMENT, meaning of, 574
PUBLIC REMEDIES, provisions conferring, 706-727
PUBLIC RESORT, PLACE OP, meaning of, 674

PUBLICATION,
rate of, 28
statute, of, not necessary, 788, 789

INDEX.

777

PUNCTUATION, imporfamoe of, 78, 76
PUNISHMENT, change of, effect of, 880.
PUBCHASEB, who in, 491
PUBSUANOE OF, IN, mMaung of, 412

See alto Fcblic Bemidies.

QVANDO ALIQUID PROHIBETVB, PBOHIBETUB ET
CMNE FEB QUOD DEVENITUB AD ILLUD, appli-
cation of, 208
QUABTEB SESSIONS, appeal from one to another, 88
QUAY, ANY, meaning of, 602
017/ PACIT PEB ALIUM FACIT PEB SE,
principal and agent, 184-140, 102, 471, 498, 494
statutory recognition of the maximum, 187

QUOEUM, provision for, 287, 662

BAILWAY,

Act, construction of, 72, 681
construction of words affecting liability of, 417
obstructing, what amounts to, 489
rating of, 82

ticket obtained by false pretences, 499
tolls of, cases as to, 97 n
BANK, words of, in descending order, 601

RATE,

Crown, how far applicable to, 247, 248

publication of, 28

railway, in case of, 82

retrospective operation of, 865

unoccupied premises, in respect of, 17

water, cases as to, 97 n.
BEADING WOEDS INTO STATUTE, power as to, 26, 29-81, 407,

448-446, 482
EEAL ESTATE ABROAD, power over, 268-271

BEASON,

reason to believe, meaning of, 67

statute contrary to, effect of, 469
REASONABLE, construction to be, 389, 659
BEASONABLE NOTICE, of appeal, what is, 19
RECITAL, in statute, effect of, 660, 661.
RECORD, COURT OF, meaning of, 614

778

INDEX.

BECORD OP STATUTES, keeping of, 72, 78, 741
BECOVEB, meaning of, «M, 617
BECOVEBED, meaning of, 24, 108, 104
BECTOBY,

charging of, 298

exemption from residence at, 621
BEPBESHMENT, liouBe for, meaning of, 674
EEPUSING TO QUIT, meaning of, 194

BEGULATIONS,

fiscal, effect of, 699-701

power to make, constmction of, fil7, 518, 528, 524
prescribed by statute, wlien imperative, 648, 695
relating to personal qnaliScation, effect of, 096

REMAINDEBMAN, statute relating to, 21
EEMEDIAI, STATUTE,

application of, 141, 144-146

different meaning to same words when penal or remedial, 660
BEMEDIES, PUBLIC AND PBIVATE,

governed by lex fori, 277

implied grant of, 706-727

BEMUNEBATION, in case of statutory service, 621
BENT, meaning of, 97
RENUNCIATION, of rights, what is, 26 '
BEFAIBS, meaning of, 609
BEPEAL,

effect of, generally, 8, 727-785

implied, when, 281-296, 826, 829-888

negatived, when deemed, 296-313

part of Act, of, interpretation by reference to, 67

penal statute, in case of, 829-888

.private Act, by, extent of, 828

public Act, of, effect on private Act of, 26

repealed Act, interpretation by reference to, 66, 68-71

repealing statute, repeal of, effect of, 727
BErUGNANCY,

avoidance of, 4

generally, 280-296

modification in case of, 406-447
BEQUIBED, meaning of, 664
EESIDENCE,

. ceased to reside, meaning of, 269

meaning of, generally, 78, 118-120, 217, 269

INDEX.

779

BESIDEHT,

oooupier, meaning o(, 669

meaning of, generaUy. 116-120
HESTBICTION,

fltnesa of matter, to, 95 ,,..,,„

operation of Act, of, to its scope and object, 148

BETABD, meaning of, 177
RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION,

rate, of, 866

statute of, 86S, 881-405, 788

RETURN,

from abroad, meaning of, 409

procure tlie return to Parliament, meaning of, 495

returning to work, meaning of, 494, 495
REVENUE LAWS, construction of, 888. Sec aho Cdstoms Acts.
REVIVAL, of repealed statute, provisions as to, 727-732
REVOLT, in ship, meaning of, 176
RIGHT, meaning of, 678

RIGHTS,

interests, as distingoished from, 666 n.
meaning of, generally, 128, 578
statute conferring, effect of, 660

foreigners when included m, 273-279
encroaching on, construction of, 601-510, 578

BIVEB, meaning of, 565

ROADS AND STREETS, meaning of, 674

BOLLS OF PARLIAMENT, entry of statute on, 72, 78, 76

ROOT, meaning of, 688

ROTATION, of ports, meaning of, 868

ROYAL ASSENT TO ACT, 60^ . 7*1

ROYAL MARRIAGES ACT, 1772, construction of, 200

ROYALTIES, MANORS AND OTHER, meaning of, 601, 602

RUBRICS, construction of, 60, 585-687, 647

RULES, STATUTORY,

interpretation by reference to, 66

of, 66, 98, 283 n., 628

power to malie, construction of, 617, 518
RUNNING AWAY, meaning of, 67, 470, 486

SAFE CUSTODY, meaning of, 472

SAILOR, absent beyond the seas, summons on, 22

780

IXDEX.

SALARY OB INCOME, meaning of, 678, 579
SALE,

exposed for, meaning of, 474

meaning of, generally, 490, 491

usual, what is, 481

SALE OP GOODS ACT, 1898, construction of, 48, 70

SALMON, illegal possession of, 184 n.

SAME,

eause, meaning of, 883

oiTenoe, meaning of, 159

SATISPACTOBir EVIDENCE, meaning of, 157
SAVING CLAUSE, construction of, 281, 282
SCALES,

light and unjust, when, 167

meaning of, 482, 483 i

SCHEDULE, repugnant, construction of, 288
SCHOOL,

attendance, meaning of, sVl

Charitable Trusts Act, 1863, in, 687 n.

SCOPE OF ACT, construction by reference (n, 89, 83, 95, 161, 406

SEAL, requirement of, 15, 27, 667, 668, 671

SEAMAN,

meaning of, 168 n.

desertion of, meaning of, 177

SEARCH, meaning of, 426

SECOND OFFENCE, meaning of, 614

SECTION, heading of, importance of, 92

SECURITY, VALUABLE, meaning of, 471, 499

SEISED IN FEE, meaning of, 105

SELL, meaning of, 125, 140, 143, 490

SELLER, who is, 514

SEND, meaning of, 488

SEPARATE BUILDING, meaning of, 658

SERVANT,

absenting himself, meaning of, 176
act of, as that of master, 134-140, 189-198, 471
knowledge of, construed as master's, 187
meaning of, 686

INDEX.

781

SETTIiEMENT,
meaning of, 97
poor law, oonstruotion of, 316, 230

SEVERANCE OF SURFACE, statute involving, cases on, 637 n.

SEX, distinotion not reoognisod, 164, 601

SHALL,

and lawfully may, 448 n.

be empowered, 437

be lawful, 429-485

have been resident, 78

Interpretation of, generally, 485-441, 443 n., 566

SHARES, ^ .

goods and merchandise, whether, 576
stoclt, included in, 494.

SHEEP, meaning of, 673

SHERIFF, officer of, tak'ng imlawful foes by, 472

SHIP,

British, meaning of, 158

casting away, what is, 681, 583

damage done by, liability for, 175

dangerous, detention of, 57

destroying, what iS; 681

meaning of, 181,486, 494

revolt in, meaning of, 176
SHOOT, OCT, STAB, OB WOUND, meaning of, 683
SHOP, meaning of, 126
SHORT TITLE, provision for, 78
SHOULD HAVE HAD NOTICE, effect of, 888

SIGNATURE,

meaning of, 614

provision for, meaning of, 138

sufficiency of, 69
SINGLE SITTING, what is, 569, 560
SINGLE WOMAN, meaning of, 126, 126
SINGULAR, includes plural, 604
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE, meaning of, 694
SLAVE TRADE, abolition of, construction of Acts for, 44, 366 n.,266

SOLDIER,

in actual service, meaning of, 127

sick and maimed, meaning of, 421
SOVEREIGN, foreign, not affected by criminal law, 263

782

INDKZ.

SPECIAL AND GENEEAL ACTS, oompwed, 72, 818-8M

SPECIFIC WOBDS, preoodod by general, offeot of, 688-fl08

SPIBITS, meaaing of, 107 n.

STAB, CUT, OB WOUND, meaning of, 467

STAMP ACTS,

conBtruotton of, 204, 226, 831, 898, 606-509
evasion of, when justified, 226, 226 '

STANDING, charge for, meaning of, 687
STATE. SeeCmwH.
STATUTE,

abuse of powers, oonatruotion to prevent, 226-284

addmg terms to, not jnstiflable, 36

ami of, to be considered, 89

ancient proclamation of, 788

benefic'il construction of, 128-147 604

case ni provided for in, how to be' dealt with, 26

clerical ^rror in, emendation of, 446

codifying, construction of, 47

conimon law re-enacted by, effect of, 8

conflict in provisions of, effect of, 142, 148

construction imposed by, effect of, 541-652

„„.* . a- X- "'• K^o'aUy- See Constedciio».

costs, inflictmg, construction of, 610

oruninal, construction of, 261, 262, 462-801

date of passing of, 77

defined, 1

earlier legislation, effect on, 8

statute to be construed as one with, 61

effectual, 'hen, 789, 740

encroaching on rights, ete., construction of, SOl-680
eqmtable construction of, 447-461
evasion, construction to avoid, 206-226
eiclusion of class of persons in, effect of, 168
extension of meaning of, not allowable, 88
foreigners, applicability to, 268-279
general, effect on particular of, 314, 828
imperative or directory, construction of, 647-678
implied enactments in, 615-646
imposing burdens, construction of, 601-580
mpan materia, construction of, 62, 458 571
incorporation in later statute of, 26, 30
intention of, importan e of, 406-447
mterpretation of incidental matters in, 8

li™it.j 1 words in. See Iktkbpewatiok ; Wobbs.
Inmted construction of, when, 197-206
local, construction of, 627-680
restriction of, 268-279

INDEX.

783

STATUTE — continued.

marginal note on. importance of, 76

minutbrial duty imposed by, cnloroomont of, 715

monopoly, eBtablifhing, construction of, 515

negative terms of, construction of, 80S

non-mention of earlier, effect of, 80

non-observance of, when excused, 678-687

obsolete, how dealt with, 786-788

official record of, 76

omission in, power to BU,, .j, 448-446

particular, hpw affected by general, 814, 823, 328

penal, construction of, 462-501

implied repeal in, 829-888
personal, construction of, 820, 527-680
plain language to bo followed, 11, 18, 25

preamble of, importance of, 77-92

previous law to be considered, 89, 48

procedure prescribed by, to be followed, 708

proclamation in former times of, 788

proviso in, construction of, 281

public, what is, 741

punotuation of, importance of, 75, 76

recital m, effect of, 550, 601

remedial, construction of, 447, 477

remedies prescribed by, enforcement of, 705-727

repeal of. See Bepeal.

repealed, interpretation by reference to, 66-68

repugnancy between, construction where, 280-296

retrospective operation of, 9, 865, 881-405

revival after repeal of, 727

scope of, to be considered, 89, 88,95, 181, 406

section of earlier Act introduced into later, construction of, 61

subtraction from terms of, not justifiable, 25

superfluous provisions in, effect of, 548-550

tautology in, effect of, 556

temporary, effect of continuance of, 784

title of, importance of, 78-76

variation of language in, effect of, 664-571
vested rights, affecting, 9
whole, to be construed as, 40
STATUTE OF FRAUDS, construction of, 49, 70,260,272,454, 511-

516, 576
STATUTE OF LIMITATION. See LiMrtATioN or Actions.
STATUTORY POWERS, land acquired under, how to be used, 681
STEP IN PEOCEEDINGS, meaning of, 46

STOCK,

debentures, distinguished from, 579
goods and merchandise, whether, 575
6ha.es, whether inclusive of, 494

784

INDEX.

STOCK JOBBIKO, itatate to prevent, 478
8TBKAM, meaning of, SOS
BTBEET, meaning of, 170, S45, 688, S97
8TB1CT CONSTECOTION,

local and petwmal Aote, of, 827
penal itatnte, of, 483-801
■tatute creating new juriidiotion, of, 617-880
encroaching on riglits, etc., of, 601-810
estabUshing monopolies, of, 616-617
regulating forms and tolemnities, of, 610-616
STEUCTUBE, meaning of, 118

SUBJEOT-MATTEB, words to be understood according to, 95-123
SUBSCRIBED, meaning of, 618

SOFFERING AND SUFPEBIiD, meaning of, 188, 190, 198, 470.
4o9t 615

SUFFICIENT,

evidence, meaning of, 897

signature, what is, 616
SUIT, meaning of, 818
SUM ADJUDGED, meaning of, 840
SUMMON.,,

absent party, on, W

bastardy, issue of, 17
service of, 33

sailor lieyond the seas, on, 23
• SUNDAY,

by-law closing canal on, validity of, 636

oomputatiion of time, when included in, 611

contract made on, validity of, 878, 879, 691

election on, validity of, 168

meaning of, 147, 168, 490, 611

service of writ on, validity of, 683

SUNDAY 0B8EBVANCE ACT, 1677, class of persons l» whom
applicable, 2, 879

SUPERFLUOUS ENACTMENTS, enfcctof, 648-560

SUPPBESSION, of nuisance, meaning of, 476

SUSPENSION, of removal of pauper, meaning of, 420

SWEAR, meaning of, 604

TAKING,

fish, meaning of, 680, 581
game, meaning of, 493
money, meaning of, 471-478
possession, from the, meaning of, 486

INDEX.

786

TAKING ADVANTAGE OP ONE'S OWN WBONG, comtrootlon

»g*!iut,870
TAUTOLOGY, conttmotion in cue of, 6&d
TAX, Act aboUiUng, oonrttuoUon of, 887
TAXED CABT, mwiiing of, Ml
TAXING ACTS, oonitruoUoo of, 238, 948. 504
TECHNICAL WOBDS, totorpretotion of, », 101
TELEGBAM, ui iMttumont within Forgeiy Act, 146
TELEGBAPB, inoludea telejliono, 146
TEMF0BAB1 ACT, efllaot of oontlnoance of, 784

TENANT, rate pt^lt by, 17

TENANT IN FEB SIMPLE, meaning of, 106

TENANT IN TAIL, meaning of, 808

TENEMENT, meaning of, S91

TERBITOBIAL JCEIBDICTION, tia,iateprimifacieMadieiio,^i

THEN AND THERE, meaning of, 466

THINK FIT, meaning of, 494, 489-441

THINK JUST, meaning of, 618

THREAT, prohibition of, 608

l^IME, ,, ..

abinration oath, for talang, 14
aroeal, for, how fixed, 18, 846, 660
appHoation of, meaning of, 844
compliance after, validity of, 859
computation of, rule as to, 604
estimation of, when none flied, 39

where period fixed, 11-14, 604
Greenwich, implication of, 605
lawful day, presumption in favour of, 162, 153
limited, construction of, 846, 411, 416, 458, 604-612
next appointed, meaning of, 14
Quarter Sessions, for complaint to, 18, 846
reasonable, when implied, 29
statute takes effect at what, 789, 740
statutory, meaning of, 606

TITLE,

construction by reference to, 74, 78
part of statute, as, 73-75
I.S.

50

786

IMDEZ.

TOLL,

•voiding tanptlM, wliim do oTHios, 333
dniy implitd bom powar to exiwt, tS4
exampuoo o( Ciewn (rem, 347
BnUmjr Act, la, omm on, 97 n,
miTar of powm to dunwid maximum, 678

TOPPINa OF TBEE8, powm u to, 100

TOTAL INCOME, muning of, KM

TOWN, meuing of, 480

TRADE UNION, rolM of, validity of, 703

TBAOEB, maaning of, 78, 7«, 087

TRADESMEN, ARTIFICER, ETC., maaning of, 884

TRAMWAY, grant of right to vorlc, ate., 888 n.

TRANSFER, maaning of,'S76

TRANSPORTATION, abbUtion of, 363

TRAVELLER, maaning of, 131 >i.

TREATY, refeienoa in cciiatraing itatcta to, 48

TRESPASS, meaning of, 449, 491, 868

TRESPASSER, meaning of, 449, 493

TRIAL BY JURY, new trial after, 147

TROOPS, foreign, not aubject to criminal law, 368

TRUE FAITH OF A CHRISTIAN, meaning of, 883

TRUSTEE FOR SALE, meaning of, 614

TURN LOOSE, meaning of, 666

TWO OR MORE, judgea, meaning of, 687

VBl DVM CONTBARIJE LEOES SUNT, SEMPER JlNTI-

QV.S ABBOGAT WOFil, appUoation of, 381
UNDER,

authority, meaning of, 413

distingulahed from " in respect " of, 666 n.

UNIFORMITY ACT, construction of, 60

UNITED KINGDOM, words having diSeient meanings in different
parts of, interpretation of, 107, 106, 163

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
revenue laws of, construotion of, 809
statute conferring jurisdiction, conateuetitm of, 682

ItTOEX.

787

UNJUST WEIGHT, mcMtlng o(, ItT, IM

UNLAWFUL.

ftoi, mcftnlnR of. 166,
purpoM, meaning of, 47S

UNLAWFULLY, meaning of, 166, 167, IRO

UNLEUU, olbck of the term, MH

UNREA80NABLKNEHS, preaumpUon agatnit, 88(»-8,16

UNTIL COMPLETED, meaning of, 417

USAGE,

elTeot of, in oonetrnction of etatute, 681-Ml
ioeal, not affected by general statute, 830
non-usage, effect of, 78A

USE,

dwelling, etc., aa, 410, 476
gun, of, meaning of, 403
navigation. In, meaning of, 181, 182
worknouie, for, meaning of, 96

USUALLY BOLD, meanii.^of, 481

USURY ACTS, oonetmction of, 300

VT BES MAOIS VALEAT QUAM PEBEAT, applloaUon of,

41S
UTI LOQUITUB VVLGVS, application of, 98, 108
UTTERLY FRUSTRATE, VOID, AND OF NONE EFFECT,

meaning of, 873

VAGABOND, meaning of, 96
VALID, meaning of, 1S7, 163
VALUABLE SECURITY, meaning of, 471. 499

VALUE,

clear yearly, meaning of, 70
flhip, of, meaning of, 516

VARIATION,

Interpretatiou, of, 5fi9
language, of, effect of, 664

V; '3ETABLE PRODUCTION, meaning of, S88

VEBBA CABTABUM F0BTIU8 ACCIPIUNTUR CONTBA
PROFERENTEM, application of, 628

VESSEL USED IN NAVIGATION, meaning of, 182

VEST, meaning of, 170

788

UUHDC

VEHTED BIOHT, , ,^

00 one hu, \n m oonno of prooedun, 4flO
■Ululc itibcURg, opemtlon of, S, MM-Ml

VOCATION, monay umcd In nnUwIul, WMwiimnt o(, M»

VOID, mnning of, M, IM, SW, 37* 873, 87»-a7(l, 880, 881, 867

VOLESTI NON FIT /Wt/BM, •!>?''<»♦'"">'• **

VOLUNTARY,

umuity, mMning of, 883
oontrlbnWoD, mwuiing of, MH
iiieanlng of, gtnenllj, 883
MtUenMnt, mcutng of, 886

VOTE, rattUed to, coMtractlon of, 470

WAOERINO, AoU agtinit, cqnrtruotlon of, 10«, 190, 310

WAIVER, of beneat of, lUtutory provinlonii, imwcr u to, 678-887

WANDERING ABRIAD, me»nlng of, 474 n.

WAREHOUSE, meuing of, 879, 897

WARRANT OF ATTOKNET,
baokniptcy, tflMt of, on, 34, 86
Toid, when, 318, 314, 334

WATER RATE, caMS on, 97 n.

WEIGHTS AND MEA8UHFS,
oxAmlnation of, 483
light and unjn>t, 196, 3«a. 4H8

WHARF, ANY, meaning of, 6ft1

WHATSOEVER, meaning of, 168, 169

WHEN, meaning of, 848

WHENEVER REQUIRED, meaning of, 16

WHERRY, LIGHTER, OR OTHER CRAFT, meaning of, 687

WIDOW, Inclniled In " single woman," when, 136

WILFUL,

act, meaning of, 167
defanlt, meaning of. 64, 19u
meaning of, generally, 167, 194, 199
wilfnlly, meaning of, 166, 180, 194

interpretation of, general rule as to. 4, 18
presence of witnesses at signing, meaning of, 14

IMDEX. 780

WITH

ail'imoUublg aiiiwd, nwuiinn of, IM
Intent to datcit oroiliton, mmning ol, 070
Hioc honm uid owriagaa, uMMiioii ol, 433

WITHIN, , ^,

BritUh jnritdlotlon, muning ol, 3TT

Umita of port, inwnlng ol, M8

month, k, mtutlng ol, MO
WITHOUT A KEEI-EB, mnuiini ol, 87, MIO
WITHOUT ISSUE, rati in two mum* In MUno will, 849
WITHOUT LAWFUL EXCUSE, muuiini ol, 488
WOODEN STBUCTURE, meaning ol, 118

WORDS, , ,^

kbatirdltjr, Interpratittlan \n out ol, 400
uudogoni, intei^l«tlon of, SM
MMoIktod, intcrpntation ol, Htl-tiK
ban«Acial, interpteUUon ol, 138-147 „ , , ,^
ohu)g« ol meaning In oonr«e ol time, effect ol, IHO
collocation ol, power to alter, 408
conneqnei m, Interpreted by relerenoo to, 148
coupled together, intarpreUtion ol, f.74

diUDrent meaninga, with, Intetprctatton of, 08. 107, 106, SM-W4
fjiiuUm generii, Interpretation ol, IMW-808
ertended meaning given to, wlien, 138 .„„ ~vi

general, interpretation ol, 88. 50, 109, 149, 484, 688-808
generic, loUowing more ipeciflc, W"'-^'* .,
grammatical conitmction ol, 8, 9S, 408, 48S
toplied reetricted meaning ol,ISS
in Imam paTinn, to be Interpreted, 688
interpolation ol, nower aa to, 408, 409, 410
meaning impowd by legiilature, eOoct ol, 643
mnltipUoitT ol, effect ol, 886, 668
natural ordinary Mnn to be taken, 1, 4
partictdar, interpretation ol, 418
plain meaning ol, to be taken, 0-9, *)
J^lar^iwrf, r^lerenoe to, 96, W, 101, 107, 103
primary meaning ol, to be taken, 876
rank, denoting, interpretation ol, 800
reading into atituta ol, not jusUflable, 36
tejeotion ol, power as to, 408
rmea as to Interpretation of, 96-147
technicd, interpretation ol, 8

WORK, meaning of, 584

WORKHOUSE, meaning ol, 98

WOK'-MEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS, conetraotion of, 134, 845

790

INDEX.

WOUND, meaning of, 487, 582

WKIT, lost, procedure in case of, 37

WRITING,

moaning of, 613
requirement of, 511

l'*<

YEAE, , _. , «m

half a, and a quarter of a, eu*
meaning of, 609

YOUNG OF SALMON, meaning of, 184 n.

THE END.

I

"-ii^^^^^i^^^^^^sii^^s^' "° ""* ""'"°'

LIST P.

May, 1922.

BOOKS FOR LAW STUDENTS.

SUBJECT NOKX. Pagb

Admlnilty 4

Agen ^..----.--4

Arbitration 4

Banking S

Bankruptcy • - 5

BIlia of Exchange - - • • • - - 6

Carriers 6

Common Law - - -- • - -7, 8, 9

Companies 10

Conflict of Laws 10

Constitutional Law 11,12

Contracts 12

Conveyancing 12, 13

Criminal Law 14

Easements .15

Ecclesiastical Law • -15

Equity 15, 16, 17

Evidence 17, 18, 19

Examination Guides 1 9, 20

Executors 20

Insurance Law 20

International Law 20, 2 1

Jurisprudence - • - - • - - -21

Latin 23

Legal History 22

Legal Maxims 22, 23

Local Government ------- 23

Master and Servant 24

Mercantile Law 24

Mortgages 24

Partnership 25

Personal Property -------25

Procedure - 26

Real Property 26, 27

Receivers 28

Roman Law 28, 29

Sale of Goods 30

Statutes 30

Torts 31

Trustees 32

Wills 32

SWEET & MAXWELL, LIMITED, »^,r*«„n:.'w.c"*

-' -II

Suggested Course of Reading for the
Bar Examinations.

SANl>-.k

T H o M A s's Leading Ca

ROMAN LAW.

Hunteb's Introduction or Kelke's Primpr.
Justinian.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

Chjumers & AsyiuTH.
Hammond's Legal History.

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCKDURB.

Odcers* Common Law, or Harris's Criminal Law. in i
Wilshire's Leading Cases. Useful also is \Vn,-p'n:i
Criminal Law.

RKAL PROPERTY.

Wii.tiAMS ("with WiLSHERES Analysis), or Edwards. I.>i
revision, Kei-ke's Epitome.

OONVEYANOINQ.

Deane a Spubi.ing's Introduction, and Clark's StuJcm^'
Precedents. Or Ei-PHiNSTONE's Introduction.

OOMMON LAW.

Odgers' Common Law (with Wilshere's Analysis), or
Indermaur's Common Law; or Carter on Contr.ici.^, ami
Eraser on Torts. Cockle's Leading Cases.

■VIDENCK AND PROCEDURE.

Odgers" Common Law, Phipson's Manual of Evidt-iice.
Cockle's Cases on Evidence, Wilshere's Procedure

EQUITY.

Snell or WiLSHEHt. For revision, Blyth's Analysi-,

COMPANY LAW.

Smith's Summary.

SPECIAL SUBJECTS.

Bilh of lixchan^'i: Jacobs or Willis. Eascmetil$, Cv>- ■
Morts'af;eA, Strahan. Partnership, Strahan. Sale -; ''■ •- ■
Willis. Wills, Matheus or Strahak. Master a 'ui ■-.■■.: !.
Smith. Carriers, Williams.

[ a 1

Suggested Course of Reading for the
Solicitors' Final Examination.

For d0tmll0d Counsa w« Steeie*M Sclt'PnpmraHoa tor
tbe PInml Exmmlamtioa.

COMMON LAW.

Indermal*r's Principles of the Common Law.
Anson or Pollock on Contracts,
RiNnwooD or Salmond on Torts.

Smith's Leading Cases, with Indehmaur's Epitome, or
Cockle & Hibbert's Leading Cases.

EQUITY.

Wilshere's or Snell's Principles of Equity.

Blyth's Analysis of Snei.l.

White & Tudor's Leading Cases, with Indermaur's

Epitome.
Strahan on Partnership.
Underbill on Irusts.

RBAL AND PKR80NAL PROPKRTY AND
, CONVEYANCING.

VViLLL\Ms or Kdwarus on Real Property.

Williams or Goodeve on Personal Property.

Wilshere's Analysis of Williams.

Elphinstone's or Deane's Introduction to Conveyancing.

Indehmaur's Epitome of Conveyancing Cases.

PRAOTICB OF THK COURTS.

Indermaur's Manual of Practice, ^

BANKRUrrCY.

RiNGWOOD's Principles of Bankruptcy.

CRIMINAL LAW.

Harris's Principles of Criminal Law.
WilShere's Leading Cases.

PROBATB, DIVORCEp AND ADMIRALTY.

Gibson's Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

Smith's Summary.

COMPANIES.

Smith's Summary.

[ » ]

NOTIOK-— /if eoaM€qu0nc0 ot tluctumtlon In coBt at prIntlriK
mad mmterlmlM, priat an Mabjecl to alt»ratlon\wUhaut
aotic*.

ADMIRALTY.

SMITH'S Law and Practice in Admiralty. For the

use of Students. By Eustace Smith, of the Innf r
Temple. Fourth Edition. 232 pages. Price 10s. net

" The book is wf>Il arranged, and forms a good introduction t -
the subject," — Solicitors J"urnal.

"It is, however, in our opinion, a well and carefully writi.u
little work, and should be in the hands of every student who !■.
taking up Admiralty Law at the Final." — Law SCiidents' Journal.

"Mr. Smith has a happy knack of compressing a larg(; amount
of useful matter in a small compass. The present work will
doubtless be received with satisfaction equal to that with \\-h.\< V.
his previous 'Summary' has been met." — Oxford and Cam/uj',/, v
Undergraduates' Journal.

AGENCY.

BOWSTEAD*S Digest of the Iaiw of Agency. Hv

W. BowsTEAD, Barrister-at-Law. Sixth Edition.
485 pages. Price £1 7s, 6d. net.

"The Digest will be a useful addition to anv law library, am]
will be especially serviceable to practitioners who have to advi-^r
nvercantile clients or to conduct their litigation, as well as to
students, such as candidates for the Bar Final Examination and
for the Consular Service, who have occasion to make the law of
agency a subject of special study."— Laic Quarterly Review.

ARBITRATION.

SLATER'S Law of Arbitration and Awards.

Appendix containing the Statutes relating to
tration, and a collection of Forms and Index.
Edition. By Joshua Slater, Barrister-at-Law.
pages. Price 5s. net.

1*1

Witli

Arbi-
Fifili

BANKING.

RINOWOOD'S Outline* ol the Law of Qanklng.

1906. 191 pages. Price 5s. net.

"... The book is in a most convenient anil portable form,
and we can nearlily commend the latest production of this well-
known writer to the attention of the business community. —
Financial Timet.

BANKRUPTCY.

M ANSON'S Short View of Banltruptcy Law. By

Edward Manson, Barrister-at-Law. Third lidition.
351 pages. Price 8s. 6d. net.

A book of 350 pages, giving the snlient points of the Uiw. The
author follows the order of proceedings in their historical sequence,
illustrating each step by forms ■nd by some of the more important
cases.

" It makes a thorough manual for a student, and a very handy
book of reference to a practitioner."— Z-aw Magaant.

RINOWOOD'S Principles of Banlcruptcy. Embodying
the Bankruptcy Acts ; Leading Cases on Bankruptcy
and Bills of Sale ; Deeds of Arrangement Act ;
Bankruptcy Rules ; Deeds of Arrangement Rules,
1915; Bills Of Sale Acts, and the Rules, etc.
Thirteenth Edition. 431 pages. Price £1 5s. net.

" We welcome a new edition of this excellent student's book.
We have written favourably of it in reviewing previous editions,
and every good word we have written we would now reiterate and
perhaps even more so. . . . In conclusion, we congratulate
Mr. Ringwood on this edition, and have no hesitation in saying
that it is a capital student's book."— Loui .Students' Journal.

" The author deals with the whole history of a bankruptcy from
the initial act of bankruptcy down to the discharge of the bankrupt,
and a cursory perusal of his work gives the impression that the
book will prove useful to practitioners as well as to students.
The appendix also contains much matter that will be useful
to practitioners, including the Schedules, the Bankruptcy Rules,
the Rules of the Supreme Court as to Bills of Sal^ and various
Acts of Parliament bearing upon the subject. The Index is
copious." — Accountants Magazine.

[ « 1

BILLS OF EXOHANQE.

JAC0B5 on Billi of Exchanxe, Chequu, Promlssor
Note*, and Negrotlable liutrumcnU Qenerally, i

eluding a digest of cases and a large number •
representative forms, and a note on I O U's and Hi'
of Lading. By Bertram Jacobs, Barrister-at-L:u-
284 pages. Price 7s. 6d. net.

" It appears to me to be a most excellent piece of work."

" After perusing portions o( it I have come to the conclusion lli
It IS a learned and exhaustive treatise on the subject, and I sh.,
certainly bring it to the notice of my pupils."

WILLIS'S Negotiable Securities. Contained in
Course of Six Lectures delivered by William Wn.i i
Esq., K.C., at the request of the Council of Leg.ci
Education. Third Edition, by Joseph Hurst, liar
rister-at-Law. 226 [lages. Price 7s. 6d. net.

" No one car fail to benefit by a careful perusal of this volum.-
— Irish Law Times.

"We heartily commend them, not only .0 the student, but t .
everybody— lawyer and commercial man alike."— Jm /tccii(irl,;r

" Mr. Willis is an authority second to none on the subject, .m ;
in these lectures he summarized for the Ijenefit not only of ii
confreres but of the lay public the knowledge he has gaiT,..'
through close study and lengthy experience."

CARRIERS.

WILLIAMS' Epitome of Railway Law. Part I. I i
Carriage of Goods. Part II. The Carriage ■
Passengers. By E. E. G. Williams, Barrister ..
Law. Second Edition. 231 pages. Price los. n
A useful book for the Bar and Railw.iy Examinations.

".\dniirably arranged, anil dearly written with an ccoiinm
language which goes tti the heart of a busy man."— Sltliii^'s /A

[ • 1

COMMON LAW.

(Set- alsfi IViinms l,t*Kal Maxims /).-i().

ODaBRS on the Common Law ol Enicland. By \V.

Dlake Odqers, K.C.,LL.D., Director of Legal Educa-
tion at the Inns of Court, and Waltkr Ulakf. Odgers,
Barrister-at-Law. Second Edition. 2 vols. 1,474
pages. Price £3 los. net.

Odien on the Common Law deals witli eonliacts, Torti.
Criminal Law and Procedure, Civil Procedure, the Courts, and
the Law of Persons.

The Student who masters it can pass tlie following Bar F.xamma-
tions ; —

(1) Criminal Law and Procadura.

(2) Common Law,

(3) aanaral Paper— Part A.

And (with Cockle's Cases and Statutes on Kvidence)

(4) law ol Evidence and Civil Procedure.
(8) Qcncral Paper— Part III.

aOME OPINIONS OF PROFESSORS AND TUTORS.

I . The Bar.—" I have most carefully examined the work, and
shall most certainly recommend it to all students reailing with me
for the Bar Examinations."

" It appears to me to be an invaluable book to a student who
desires to do well in h.s examinations. The sections deahng w.th
Criminal Law and Procedure are, in my opmicn, especially
valuable. They deal with these dilhcult subjects in a manner
exactly fitted to the examinations : and in this the work differs
from any other book I know."

"I have been reading through Dr. Odgers' Common Law. and
find it f. ..lost excollent work for the Har l-'inal. aNn tot the Har
Criminal Law."

2. The Universities.-" I consider it to be a useful and
comprehensive work on a very wide subject, more .specially frorr

(71

Common Lttw—eontiniud.

the point uf view of a law student. I shall be glad to recommri
it to th« favourable attention of taw Atudcnii of the Universii\

3. Solicitors.— Thi Book fob the Soi.iciTORi' Final.— "Oi
the Intermediate is over, the articled clerk has some latit :
allowed ai to hii course of study. And, without the sligh"
hesitation, we say that the first book he should tackle af-
negotiating the Intermediate is 'Odgers on the Common I.a-
The volumes may seem a somewhat 'hefty tuk,' but these t
volumes give one less trouble to read than any single volume
any legal text-book of our acquaintance. They cover, morcov
all that is most interesting in the wide field of legal studies in
manner more interesting than it has ever been treated before."

INDERMAUR'S Principles of the Common La\\.

The Law of Contracts and Torts, with a She
Outline of the Law of Evidence. Thirteen ^
Edition. Re-written and enlarged by A. M.Wii.shei
Barrister-at-Law. 639 pages. Pnce £1 7s. 6d. n.

F<ir many years Indcntiaur's Common Law has been a vah;
friend uf the law student, but ufter a very careful examination
the b««>k Mr. Wiishere found that, if 1 was to retain the positi
its merits had won, it tould not be re-cuited without substatiii :
changes. The rearrangements he has made will assist a stud, r
wh*t, after or with Indermaur, read^ othnr books on particui
subjects.

INDERMAUR'S Leading Common Law Cases; with

sortie short notes thereon. Chiefly intended as d
Guide to " Smith's Leading Cases." Tenth Edition
by E. A. Jelf. Master of the Supreme Court. Witli
six illustrations by E. T. Reed, hi pages. Pri- ^
8s. 6d. net.

The editor lias introduced several Tiew fe.itures with a view
assisting the studeni in remembering the principles of law dr ^i
with, but the unique feature of the edition is the addition of
illustrations by Mr. E. T. Reed. After seeing these illustration
the bull in the ironmonger's shop, the chimney-sweep and '
jeweHer, the six carpenters in tlie tavern, etc., you will find it .- :
to remember the cases and what points they decided. Every \^ ,
student reads this book.

[ 8 ]

Common Law- t»"'i"»"'.

COCKLE ft HIBBERT'S Uadinc Caie* In Common

Law With Notes, Kxplanatory and Connective,

presenting a Syste.natic View ..f the whole Sul.ject.

Hy E CocKLK ami W. Nf.mbii\hi> Hilii.tKr, l-I-L)-.

liartistersatl.aw. 962 pages. I'rue ^2 2S. net.

This b.K.V is ..1. thf s^m- Irnes as C.H-klcs Cii».-, on Kvidf ii,r,

Followini! i» 11 slii"t summary nf ll» ciintinls :

V»M. Mc. CMtracti. >l.«««l«bl« liutra'
OuB«l-C«ntraclf. M«ntl.

Anncy. '""""'Hi

BallnnM. ».l.oia<i.d«.

Carrl«r>. Tnrti

N«Mr« •! «. I C«»"n>"

Law.
Caaiaua Law Rllhti and

DatlM.
Csatract. Includint Can<

truu ol titcord. Landlard and Tanaat. Daauiu.

Sr-r " --—••

•• Dr HiblxTl IS 1" hi' cinBratulatol ..n llio mast-rly manner m
whuh he has ri-.r.l.leil 0<cMc\ l.r.Tling Cases .m Comriu.n Law.
The arra,>Kemcnt anJ prlatinK are parlirularlv cUar. Ih. rh..,r. . I
cask is mark«l by great dis<retio„, .-m.l a siu." ana ysis of the
U^r.. various departments dealt with in the b...k .s Mt orth
„,"h .vew"o reLh.UK the reader, knowledge on the subject
S're he turns t.. rea.l the rases which are set out. Lo.c C™.*.

"The present work ha. the merits of thoroughness, .iccuracy.
.vstematK- arrangement and a mixlem point of view, -io(u.l»«
Journal.

EMiTH'<t l^adinir CaM«. A Selection of Leading
^"Case! ilfv'ario'us Baches of the Law, with Notes.
Twelfth Edition. By T. VV.llf.s Chitty, a Master
of the Supreme Court, J. H. Williams^ and V\. H.
Griffith, Barristers-at- Law. 3 vols. Price i:4 net.
This work presents a number of cases illustrating and explaining
the leading principles of the common aw, a', ompanied by
«hau«ive notes sh'owing how tho«= principles have been applied
in subsequent cases,

JELF'S Fifteen Decisive Battles of the Law. By
E A. Jei" Master of the Supreme Court. Second
Edition. 124 pages. Price65.6d.net.
Mr Jelf narrate, with light and skilful touch the incidents and
relultt of nrteen of the most imr»rtant decisions ever given by the
ud.es and he shows Ihe ollect' which e.ach decision has had upon
the general bo<ly of Knglish Law.

t « 1

OOMPANIKt.

KBLKE'S Epitome of Company Law. Second Ed,
tion. 355 pages. Price 6s.

"No ilrnm or more concii* •latement of lh< l«w u regat
conip«ni« i..uld lie found than ii contained in thil work, and aii
•tudeni who llioriiuniny nio>IR> it nied have no (»r o( n
pamng Ins e«amitialion."-;aM</ital h vita:.

SMITH'S Summary of the Uw of Companlot. I

I. fcusTAcE Smith, ftarrister-at-Law. Twelfth

Edition, by the Author, and C. H. Hicks 17

pages. Price 7s. 6d. net.

••The author of this h«ndtio<.k Ifllj ui that when an arlii I.
Itudent reading lor the linal examination, he felt the want of m i
a work a« that before u>, wherein could be found the in., ,
principles of a law relating to joint-itock romuaniet. . 1;,

students may well read it : for .Mr. Smith has very wisely been .■
the pains of giving his authority for all his statemenU of the L ..
orol practice, as applied to joint-stock company business usial:
transacted in *ilicitors chambers. In fact, Mr. Smith has b- li,
little book offered a fresh inducement to students to make tlii'ii
•elra-at all events, to some extent— acquainted with compai,.'
law as a separate branch of study. "—f.(itt> Times

"These pages give, in the words of the Preface, 'as briefly an 1
concisely iui possible a general view h-i.t. r lie piinci.lo' i[i»i
practice of the law alTecting companies.' Thi work is excelleni .
printed, and authorities are cited ; but in no case is the langu.^f
of the statutes copied. The plan is good, and shows Ixjth Kr.,.p
and neatness, and. both amongst students and lavmen, Mr. SmitI, s
book ought to meet a ready ale "—Law Journal.

OONFLIOT OF LAWS.

WESTLAKE'S Treats on Private Int-mational
Law, with Principal Reference to its Pn.ctice in
England. Sixth Edition. By Norman Bentwu ii
Barrister-at-I.aw. Price £j 7s. 6d. net.

FOOTE'S Private International Jurisprudence. Bas 1

oil the Decisions in the English Courts. Fou; !i
Edition. By Coleman Phillipson, LL.D., Barrist. :-
at-Law. 574 pages. Price £1 5s. net.

•Foote- is the prescribed book for the Solicitors' Hon. ,
Kx.iminution.

r 10 1

OONtTITUTIONAL LAW AND
HISTORY.

CHALMBR5' * ASQUITM'S Outltmi of Conitltutlonal
■ml Adralnlitratlv. Law, witli Notes on Legal
History. Hy D. Chaumbrs and Lybh. Asutrrii,
Uarristers-at-Law. Second Edition. 3io pages.
Price 13». 6d. netl

"A vrry iu>untt l»ati«-. ilistliullv uIb^p llir a\iT«K' I In*
b<M>k >u|.i)lic. 11 |..n((-(rll wmit. Ihr wlu.k li.l<l i» ri.v..ti«l in »D
inlrrnling mnnwr, unuMial in a wmk wliiill il."-i ni>l ■ liiiiii t" I"'
nnythiiiK miirr thuii on outline." Ntw CimiiriJiti.

•■IhP Iriitncrf nutlicirs havr very rloiirlv laliuliilnl nnil ililund
the tfrhniialilii^ of cut ...u»!ituti..nal (a». Ihr luKik is wtU
arrangfd anil well inili-xed." -.'^tifwn/iiv Htvim:

THOMAS'S LcadliiE C—» In CoiMtltutlonal Law.

Briefly stated, with Introduction and Notes. By
Ernest C. Thomas, IJacon Scholar of the Hon.
Society of Gray's Inn, late Scholar of Trinity College,
Oxford. Fifth Edition. Hy Fmank Card, LL.D.

[/« the prtss.

TASWELL-LANQMEAD'S Encllili Conitltutlonal
Hlftory. From tlie Tei:ti'nic Invpsic.^ !> the Present
Time. Designed as a Text-booK for Students and
others. Bv 1'. P. Taswell-Langmfad, B.C.L., of
Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law, formerly Vmerian
Scholar in the University and late Professor
of Constitutional Law and History, University
College, London. Eighth Edition. By Coleman
Phillipson, LL.D. 854 pagft. Price ais. net.

"•Taswell-l-nnKnicid' has Imig Ix'en popular witli cmdidates
for examination in Constitutional History, and tlie present edition
should render it even more so. It is now, in our opinion, the ideal
students' book upon the subject."— /-aio Notts.

" The work will continue to hold the field as the best dawbook
on the subject. "—Cjiilemfoniry Ilmtn:

"The work before us it would be hardly possible to praise too
hilhlv In style, arrangement, clearness, and sue it would ^
difficult to find anything better on the real history of Ingland,
the history of its ainstitutional growth as a complete story, than
this volume."— Boston (U.S.) Literary World.

I

]

Constitutional Law and History— coiKiimcrf.

WILSHERE'S Analysis of Taswell-Lansmead's Con
stitutional History. Hy A. M. Wii.sheke, LL.li
Barrister-at-Law. 115 pages. Price6s.6d.net.

HAMMOND'S Short Engrlish Constitutional Historx

for Law Students. By Edgar Hammond, B.A. k
pages. Price 7s. 6d. net.

An exfdlent book for the purpose of refreshing one's knowleil"
preparatory to taking an e.\amination.

■■ An excellent cram-book and a little more. The tabulation -1
the matter is excellent."— /.aiti Times.

CONTRACTS.

ODQERS on the Common Law. ' See page 7.

WILSHERE'S Analysis of Contracts and Torts,

By A. M. WiLSHERE and Douglas Robb, Barristei
at-Law. Second Edition. 172 pages. Price 7s. 6d.nci
It is designed as an assistance to the memory of the Student nli .
has read Odgers or Inderniaur on the Common Law.

CARTER on Contracts. Elements of the Law of Con-
tracts. By A. T. Carter, of the Inner Tempi..
Barrister-at-Law, Reader to the Council of Leg;!
Education. Fourth Edition. 272 pages. Pn .-
8s. 6d.

"We have here an excellent book tor those who are beginmi' •
to read law." — Law Magatine.

CONVEYANCING.

ELPHINSTONE'S Introduction to Conveyancin ■

By Sir Howard Warbijrton Elphinstone, B. "
Seventh Edition, by F. Trentham Maw, Barrisi
at-Law, Editor of Key and Elphinstone's Precede
in Conveyancing. 694 pages. Price 25s. net.

" Incomparably the best introduction to the art of conveyai
that has appeared in this generation. It coi.l-iins much il:.
useful to the experienced practitioner."— /.au' 'imes.

[ 12 ]

Conveyanclng-

'cmtinued.

"In our opinion i U'tter v o:
deals was ever writi n l-. stvide
Law Sous.

ihe subject with which it
[,-" young practitioners." —

from a so ,ir,.. hat c.iiioal xaminafion of it we have
come to the conclusion t,..i i' .of id be difficult to place ma
student's hand a better work of .ts knid.' -Law Sludnts Journal.

nEANE & SPURLINQ'S Introduction to Convey-
ancing^ with an Appendix of Students' Precedents.
Third Edition, by Cuthbert Spurling, Barr.ster-at-
Law. Price £i is. net.

This book is con.plementary to and extends the informiition in
■•Williams- It is dearlv and attractively written and the tex
extends to 271 p.ises. -Ihe render is taken through tlie component
par's of "u chase Ueeds, Le.-ises, Mortgage Deeds, Settlements and
Iv lis, and the way ,n which these instruments are prepared is
explained Previous to this is a short history o ConveyancnK,
and a chapter on Contracts for Sale of Land dea mg with the
: atutov r'equisites, the form, ^y-''■''^-'-'\ ^VTllTi^ll^^r
. the abstract of title, requisitions, et.^ and finally "'"f Vl'^'L^'v
on ci>nvevance bv registration. 1 he second part of the book,
ZS'gaCout too pales, contains Clar^sStlmientsPhec^^^^^^^^
,N CoNVF.v.VNClNr„ illustrating the various d-K-uments '''"red to
in the first part. It is.the only liook ront..ining a representative
collection of precedents for students.

•■It is readable and cle.ar and will be of interest even to those
students who are not specialising in qujstions of real property. —
Cambridf;e Law Joiirmd.

"The stvle is singularly lucid and the writer has dtliberately
formed the- opinion that this hook should forin part of the course
of everv student who dt.,ires a real practi.al acquaintance with
m„"er" conveyancing . . ■ P^P^^- "-d the wn,« s op.n|on .s
that Deane and Spurling should be one "'..''■« '.•"''*"'^"'''''^
after the Intermediate luis beer negotiated. —i.tli««s /toim.

INDERMAUR'S Leading Conveyancine and Equity
Ciwes With some short notes thereon, for the use
of Students. Bv John Indermaur, Solicitor. I enth
Edition by C. Thwaites. 206 pages. Price 6s. net.

"The Epitome well deserves the continued pat'-'nage of the
class-Students- for whom it is especially intended Mr. lnd«-
maurwiUsoon be known as the •Students Friend. -Canada
Law Journal.

I 13 1

CRIMINAL LAW AND PROOEDURr

ODQERS on the Common Law. See page 7.

indents and "^htp^f"' "'^ ="''J«'=' ^"^ ^^^ ""« "'

%A"M.\^l,^!^,H:tfn:t"er-at'}!L^^^

Price i6s. net ^"'ster at-Law. 520 pages

reason for al.„,„g ou^o'^'nl:"" '" -LPSV.'r. "' ""' ""

^'V!IL^'*^?D^'^'"'"*'' •" ^^riminal and Magisterial

icr ai-Law. Inird Edition r^« A- a

Tu- I. 1 ■■'vii. , ijn the pres>i

«g!in?f°- .n mminal law wi,. ..J.. .„..'... . ^ r—

WILSHERES Leading Cases illustrating the Crimi-
nal Law, for Students. 168 pages. Price 6s "'

A coniDanloil book to the abovo.

co;^^^a';?.'=rJ,t's'^al=?Sb''"" ^"^ =™p"' "■"-'

tht matCTial Darts of Ih?^,^.' "^ '^ S™' ^""l ""en foil,.

has b«rrudS y l'd.^a„d ?;"rh ^he selection of c.,.,
criminal law. Th/studem'who hL ?'^''!."f. *''°'' "=''• '
panion volume win b eaWe Zti^t mastered this and its co,_.
^.hout .repidaTioL"lt;,rLr?;wr"'°'" '" "™i-"
[ 14 ]

MMKftfc. ■'

EASEMENTS.

BLYTH'S Epitome of the Law ol Easements. By

T. T. Blytii, Barrister-at-Law. 158 pages. Price
6s. net.

" The book should prove a useful addition to the student's
library, and as such we can confidently recommend it. — Lai»
Quarterly Review.

CARSON on Prescription and Custom. Six Lectires
delivered for the Council of Legal Education, by
T. H. Carson, K.C. 136 pages. Price 6s. net.

ECCLESIASTICAL LAW.

SMITH'S Law and Practice in tlie Ecclesiastical
Courts. For the use of Students. By Eustace
Smith, Barrister-at-Law. Seventh Edition. 219
pages. Price 1 2S. 6d. net.

"His object has been, as he tells us in his preface, to give the
student and general reader a fair outline of the scope and extent
o( ecclesiastical law, of the principles on which it is founded of
the Courts by which it is enforced, and the procedure by which
these Courts are regulated. We think the book well u his its
object its value is much enhanced by a profuse citation ol
authorities for the projiositions contained in it."-Bni' hxammatton
Journal.

EQUITY.

SN ELL'S Principles of Equity. Intended for the use
of Students and Practitioners. Eighteenth Edition.
By H. G. RiviNGTON, M.A. Oxon., and A. C. touN-
TAINE. 578 pages. Price £1 los. net.

■• In a most modest preface the editors disclaim any intention to
interfere with Snell as generations of students have known it
Actually what they have succeeded in doing .s to make the book
aUeast three times as valuable as it ever was before. l""«f»«'"'«
torn cases have been deftly introduced, and the whole rendered
simple and intelliRible until it is hardly recognisable. -The
Students' Companion.

" It has been stated that this book is intended primariiy for law
students, but it is much too useful a book to be so limited. It is

[ IS J

1

Equity— aniimtd.

o, "he^aTo^auYiv""?^* "'' T" ^"''^ ^"■""'■">' "' 'he' principle

7S M net. '"'""' '"''"°"- ^7° P=»g«^- Pnr.
-im. Jo„n!a, ' ""'' ''"'' P^fi'sb'-' to the studtm

. subject wind, ;„llo„° (he L" ' " "" '""''^''' "' ''

ot'lhL^prindples''' 'nrh'^'" «7'"5 "^ " «'y clear exp„s„;, .

r 16 ]

tWSt

E(|Uity — continued.

INDERMAUR*S Epitome of Leading Equity Cases.

See page 1 3.

WHITE & TUDOR'S Leading Cases in Equity;. A

Selection of Leading Cases in Equity; with Notes.
Eighth Kdition. HyW. J. Whittaker, of the Middle
Temple and Lincoln's Inn, Harrister-at-La\v. 2 vols.
Price £*4 net.

'"White and Tudor' towers liitih aliove all other works i>n
Equity. It is the fountain of Equity, from which all autliors
draw and drink. It is the book we all turn to when we want to
know what the Judges nf the old Court of Chancery, or it^
modern representative, the Chancery Division, liave said and
decided on this or that principle of law. It is the bot>k in which
counsel in his chambers puts such faith, and from which in Court
counsel rt'ads with so much conhdence. It is the book from the
law of which Judges hesitate to depart."— Lau' Note>.

EVIDENCE.

COCKLE'S Leading Cases and Statutes on the Law
of Evidence, with Notes, explanatory and connective,
presenting a systematic view of the whole subject.
By Ernest Cockle, Barrister-at-Law. Third
Edition. 500 pages. Price i6s. 6d. net.

This book and Phipson's Manual are together uuftldent for
all ordinary examination purposes, and will save students the
necessity of reading larger Works on this subject.

By an ingenious use of black type the author brings out the
essential words of the judgments and Statutes, and enables the
student to see at a glance the effect of each section,

"Of all the collections of leading cases compiled for the use of
students with which we are acquainted, this book of Mr. Cockle's
is, in our opinion, far and away the best. The stuuent who picks
up the principles of the Knglish law of evidence from these
readable and logical payes has an enormous advantage over a
generation oi predece,ssors who toiled through the compressed
sentences of Stephen's little digest in a painful effort to grasp its
meaning. Mr. Cockle teachts his subject in the only way in
which a branch of law so highly abstract can ever be grasped ; he
arranges the principal rules of evidence in logical order, but he
puts forward each in the shape of a leading case which illustrates
it. Just enough of the iieadnote, the facts, and the judgments are

[ 17 ]

Evtiencc—continuid.

"Sr"* Tni'll""' *". "P'^'" •!" P°'"' '""y "i'"™' boring th-

''"']?f"T^ V,* »' Evidence. By S. L. Ph.pson
Barrister-at-Law. Sixth Edition. 699 pages. Price
x, * 2s. net.

"The best hook miw current
England. —Harvard Law Review.

on the law of evidence

''"'prfi??'^ ""?"■' "' ^IS '^* »' Evidence. Secon i
td.tion. 208 pages. Price 12s. 6d. net.

5bS ["rpos« '•'"^'''" C=««« ■' will b. sufficient ?or examin';,.

Ion Jr h»r;7 °t!'" ","''"•• "?'""' """ °' *''« transgressor, is ,.0
longer hard. The volume under review is designed by the auth r

«nl„, ^'"^''^"'■.'r To say that it is the best text-book „
whi^l ^ ^"'. ? '" ""Slence no other treatise upon evidpin -

m a lln:/"™"'*' ""'' ''^f"'^"' presentment oMhe su™, ,
T/,,?„ compass suitable to students."-/l„.l™;,-a„ /„:„

" We know r.o book on the subject which oii-es in so shot' a
Sb'^.hTs,™ "f '" '."''^™'«-"- We reidif; commend „
work both to students antl to practitioners, especially those ^■r■'.

an up'rdati^n'nT'"","' "" """■<'" '"8" ^rk, fvilri^ „
"nSrit^^l.TP'^™"'"' "'""'""'°" '" 'Cockle.' ■•-,.,„„»

BEST'S Principles of Evidence. With Elemen!.,.y
Kules for conducting the Examination and CuJ.
txamination of Witnesses. Eleventh Edition. :tv
i>:L. Phipson, Barrister-at-Law. 620 pages. Pi ce

in}Iy%ortr;^"-i'r°7^l™ '■'' '^" "' "'""■« -»"='■ ' >"
"There is no more scholarly work among all the trealiv on

f^'^Z:XV^T',^l- J""" '^ - PhiWphic^l'bre ,,.;„
.V„.l throughout which at once separates the work nm

the-reZ'° 7"?^"^ ,".' .^"""°""« "hich take no a"or f
the reason why, and which arrange two apparentlv contra.l v

■ m'C«:f "' ''" "'"■°"' ™™--' oT'lvpTat"::.

[ 18 ]

ft

Evidence— con tinued.

WROTTBSLEY on the Bxaminatlon of Witncs»c«

in Court. Including Examination in Chief, Cross-
Examination, and Re-Examination. With cliapters
on Preliminary Steps and some Elementary Rules
of Evidence. By F. J. Wrottesley, of tile inner
Temple, Barrister-at-Law. 173 pages. Price 63. net.

This is a practical book for the law student. It is interrsting, and
is packed full of valuable hints and infurmatiun. Tlie author
lays down clnarly and succinctly the rules which should guide Ihr:
advocate in the examination of witnesses and in the arcument of
questions of fact and law, and has illustrated the precepts which
he has given by showing how they have been put into actual
practice by the greatest advocates of modern times.

EXAMINATION GUIDES AND
QUESTIONS.

SHEARWOOD'S Selection of Questions set at the
Bar Examinations from i9l3 to 1921, Price
6s. net.

STEELE'S Articled Clerk's Guide to and Self-
Preparation for the Final and Honours Exami-
nations. Containing a Complete Course of Study,
with Books to Read, Test Questions, Regulations,
&c., and intended for the use of those Articled Clerks
who read by themselves. Incorporating Indermaur's
Articled Clerk's Guide. By E. A. Steele and
G. R. J. Duckworth, Solicitors. Principals of the
Halifax Law Classes. Price 4s. 6d. net.
This book tells you what iire the best books to reatl, how and
when to read them, gives test questions to be answered at the
various stages of reading .^nd a set of questions and answers.
Even if you are being coached, you will find many useful hints
and much sound advice in it.

A New Qulde to the Bar. Containing the Regula-
tions and Examination Papers, ana a critical Essay
on the Present Condition of the Bar of England.
By LL.B., Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. 204
pages. Price 5s.

[ 19 ]

b

Examination Quidea and Questioni-conriniieil.

A Qulde to the Lecal Protesiion and London LL.B.

Containing the latest Regulations, with a detailed
description of all current Students' Law Books, and
suggested courses of reading, gg pages. Price
M. &d. net,

EXECUTORS.

WALKER'S Compendium of the Law relatinc to
Executors and Administrators. Fifth Edition.
By S. E. Williams, of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-
Law. 400 pages. £1 5s. net.

" We highly approve of Mr. Walker's tirrnn^vnient. . . . Wf
can commend it as bearing on its face evidence of skilful and
careful labour." — Liw Times.

INSURANCE LAW.

HARTLEY'S Analysis ol the Law ol Insurance. By

D. H. J. Hartley, Barrister-at-Law. 119 pages
Price 4s. 6d. net.

PORTER'S Laws of Insurance: Fire, Life, Accident,
and Quarantee. Embodying Cases in the English,
Scotch, Irish, American, Australian, New Zealand,
and Canadian Courts. Sixth Edition. 490 pages
Price £1 I2S. 6d. net.

INTERNATIONAL LAW.

BENTWICH'S Students' Leading Cases and Statutes
on International Law, arranged and edited witi.
notes. By Norman Bentwich, Barrister-at-Lav .
With an Introductory Note by Professor L. Oppen-
HEiM. 247 pages. Price 12s. 6d. net.

"Tliis Case Book is admirable from every pomt of view, an]
may be specially recommended to be used liy young students n
conjunction with their lectures and their reading of text-books "
— Professor Oppenheim.

1 20 1

InUrnatlonul Law— conirnunJ.

COBBETT'S Lcadlnic fact •nd Oplnloiw o" Inter-
national Law, and various points of English .aw
connected therev.itli, Collecteil and UiRested from
English and Foreipn Reports, Ollicial Documents,
anci other s. iirc.^s. With Notes containing the
views of the "ext-writers on the Topics referrea
to, Supplementarv Cases, Treaties, and Statutes.
By Pitt Corbett, M.A., D.C.L. Oxon.
Vol 1. "Peace." Fourth Kdition. By H. H. L.
Ui;li.ot, D.C.I.. 3C'5P"g<^s- Pricei6s.net.
Vol II "War and Neutrality." Tliird Edition.
By the Author. 579 pages. 15s.net.

"Tl« book is well arransed, th« materials "'» "^'"^"j'; ^"i'^'
comments to the point. Much will be found n small space m
this tiook," — Law Journal.

"The notes are concisely wi tten and trustworthy. ., . • ■
The reader will learn from them a great deal on the subject, and
the book .IS a whole seems a convenient introduction to fuller and
more systematic works."— Ox/ori/ Magatmi.

JURISPRUDENCE.

EASTWOOD'S Briel Introduction to Austin's Theory
of Positive Law and Sovereignty. By K. A.

Eastwood. 72 pages. Puce 3s. 6d. net.

Nine out of ten students who lake up the ^^'^^V f I'^^^^f^X
are set to read Austin, without any warning th.it A"f<'"^™"»
are not universally held, and that his work ought not now to be
?««Sed atone, but raiher in connection with the volum. of
mticism and counter-criticism to which it has given rise.

Mr. Eastwood-s book gives a brief summary of 'I?'; ";°';^^^'^)
portions of Austin, together with a summary of the various views
and discussions which it has provoked.

SALMOND'S Jurisprudence; or, Theory of the Law.
By John W. Salmond, Barnster-atLaw. bixtti
Edition. 496 pages. Price £1 net.

•■ Aln.ost univ.-rsally read among students of jurisprudence. -
haw Coach.

[ 21 ]

LEGAL HISTORY.

"'^'l^fiPsP'^ Short HUtory of EnKll.h Law. for

Law Students. By Ldgar Hammond, BA 17-
pages. Priceios.6d.net.

EV\NSS Theorlei and Crltleifmi of Sir Henry
Maine. Contained in Ins six works, "Ancient Law
tarly Law and Customs," " Early History of In
stitutions "VHaBe Communities," "Internationa!
t-aw, and lopular Government," whicli work-
have to be studied for the various examinations
By Morgan O. Evans, Barrister-at-Law. 10, paee.
Hnce 5s. net. °

wr tmg 1, absolutely useless for examiniition purposes. Tl„
I 1* book saves the student much waste of time and raent .

LEGAL MAXIMS.

^.^. f.!^~*i!'"K^f ^Z"' ""'ms, Cla«lfied and
niustratecL Eighth Edition. By J. G. Pease a„ i
Herbert Chitty. 767 pages. Price £1 12s. 6-1
net.

The main idea of this work is to present, under the heaii I
Maxims," certain leading prlnclplw of EnitUsh law ami i

atoll's" 'r'.°I, '^ "r '" '"^'^^ those prfncTplJsTiv:,- „
applied or limited, by reference to reported cases The mair
are classified under tlie following divisions:-

RuIm founded on Public

Policy.
Ruleo ol Ladsutlvo Policy.
Maxims relatlnt to tflo

Crown.
The Judicial Ollico.
Tiu Modo ol Admlnlsterloc

Jnotlco.
Rule* of Logic,

FundanoaUl Lo»I Prlndrloa.
Acquisition, Enjoymont. and

Transfer of Property.
Rules Relalint to Marriatr

■nd Descent.
Tile interpretation of Dced.f

and Written Instrunonts.
Tho Ljiw of Contracts.
The L.aw of Evidence.

h,l„ ,k- I .i° "?,* Pkasure to read the book, and we c.i
.fM5i,H , '!l^ 0=", ■'■""''^ °' ">'" "'ind were niore blqu
studied l)y the Profession there would be fewer false po nts •
in argument in our Courts."-y»,i,ce 0/ ,», p„„. ^

I 23 ]

Legal Maxims — c«n(i>iii#<i.

Latin lor Lawyers. Contains (i) A course in Latin,
in 32 lessons, baseil on legal maxims; (2J 1000 Latin
Maxims, witli translations, explanatory notes, cross-
references, anil subject-index; (3) A Latin Vocabu-
lary. 300 pages. Price 7s. 6d. net.
This biMik is int'^nded tc» rii.ible the practitionir or student to
acquire a working knowledge of Latin in the shortest possible
time, and at the same time to become acquainted with ttie legal
maxims which embody the fundamental rules of the ronmn)n law.

COTTERELL'S Latin Maxims and Phrases. Literally
translated, with explanatory notes. Intended for
the use of students for all legal exaniinritinns. By
J. N. CoTTERELL, Solicitor. Third Edition. 83
pages. Price 5s. net.

LOCAL QOVERNMENT.

WRIOHT & HOBHOUSE'S Outline of Local Qovern-
ment and Local Taxation In England and Wales

(excluding London). P'^ifth Edition. With Intro-
duction and Tables of Local Taxation. Hy Rt.
Hon. Henry Hobhouse. 214 pages. Price 13s. 6d.
net.

" The work gives within a very moderate compass a singularly
clear and rumprehensive accuunt of our present system of hx-al
self-government, both in urban and rural districts. We are,
indeed, not aware of any other work in which a similar view is
given with equal completeness, accuracy, and lucidity."— Comity
Council Times.

" Lucid, concise, and accurate to a degree which has never been
surpassed."— /us ti'« of tht Peace.

JACOBS' Epitome of the Law relating to Public
Health. By Bertham Jacobs, Barrister-at-Law.
191 pages. Price 7s. 6d. net.
Specially written for students.

" This little work has the great merit of being an accurate guide
to the whole body of law in broad outline, with the added ad-
vantage of bringing the general law up to date. The one feature
will appeal to the general student or newly-fledged councillor, and
the other to the expert who is always the better lor the perusal of
an elementary review."— Afunicif ai Officer.

[ 28 ]

MASTER AND SERVANT.

S*".?"'* l^w ol Mailer and Servant. SeventI

Ktlitmii. Ilv l. M. Kvowi.Ks, Uuirister-atl.av
Jjo |Kij;es. Price sjs. net.

MERCANTILE LAW.

SLATERS* Principles of Mercantile Uw. By Josin
Slater, Harrister-at-Kaw. Tliird Edition u,
pages. Price 6s. 6d. net.

SMITH'S Mercantile t-aw. A Compendium of M.m
cantile Lau. by the late John William Sxirn
Iwelftli Kdition. By J. H. Watts, Barrister-;.!

[In the pr,

U«fi.

BanhrHptcy.

BIIU of Eichanpic
Maatar and Scr> mn i .
Sala of a«o4«,
DtMaraii4Crcdii'>'.

Law.

PartiMra.

Cawpanlaa.

Principal aad Asaat.

Shlpplnv.

Patant«.

aeadwIH.

Trada Marlu.

CONTENTS-
NagoUaMa laalrHManU,
Carritra.
AflralrMawnt.
Iiuttranca.
ContracU.
Quarantaaa.
Stappasa la TranaMa.

" Wp have no hesitation in recummrnding the work bcfon- u
the profession and the public as a reliable guide to thestihj.
included in it, and as constituting one of the most stun'
treatiMfs extant on mercantile law.*'— So/iciiofi" Journal

MORTQAOES.

STRAHAN'S Principles of the Qencral Law
Mortgagres. Dy J. Andrew Sthahan, Barriste i
Law, Reader of Equity, Inns of Court. Sec
Edition. 247 pages. Price 7s. 6d. net.

" He has contrived to make the whole law not merely cuii^^
but simple and reasonable. . . . .Mr. Strahau's book ih .
for the purposes of students' examinations, and maybe thor. .
recommended." — Law Journal.

" It is a subject in which there is great need for a book wli-
moderate compass should set forth in clear and simple laiif
the great leadmg principles. This Mr. Strahan's book do'- .
way that could hardly be bettered."— Lour .Votes.

r 24 ]

PARTNEIISHIP.

STRAHAN A OLDHAM'S Law of Partntrihtp. By

J. A. Straiian, Reader of Fiquity, Inns of Court,
and N. II. Oldham, fVirristers-at-Law. Second
Edition. 364 pages. Trice los. nrt.

"It might alm..»i be (levrihed as a coUwrtion of judicial
itatement* is t.> the l;iw of puriiiership arrannfil with skill, so at
to sliow thfir txai I bearing on the hingungf used in the Partner-
ship Act of iByo. and we venture to pro|jhMV that the book will
attain a considerable amount ol lame. '— S(mi/*h/s Companion,

PERSONAL PROPERTY.

WILLIAMS' Principles ol the L«w ol Per«onal Pro-
perty, intended for the use of Students in Con-
veyancing. Seventeentli Edition, liy T. Cyprian
Williams, of Lincoln's Inn, Itarristerat-Law. 655
pages. Price £1 is. net.

" Whatever competitor* there may lie in the field of real pro-
perty, and they are numerous, none exist as serious rivals to
Williams' Personal. For every law student it is invaluable, and
to the practitioner it is often useful." — Law Timet.

KELKE'S Epitome ol Pergonal Property Law. Third

Edition. 155 pages. Price 6s.

"On the eve of his examination we consider a candidate for the
Solicitors' Final would find this epitome most useful."— f-atf Nottt.

"An admirahle little book; one. indeed, which will prove of
great service to students, and which will meet the needs of the
busy practitioner who desires to refresh his memory or get on the
track of the law without delay."— /risA Law JouynaL

aOODEVE'S Modern Law ol Personal Property.

With an .Appendix of Statutes and Forms. Fifth
Edition. Revised and partly re-written by J. H.
Williams and W. M. Crowdy, I5arristers-at-Law.
461 pages. Price £1 net.

" We have no hesitation in heartily commending the work to
students. They can hardly t.ike up a better treatise on the subject
of Personal Pnjperty."— /.me Stutienl's Journal.

I M 1

PROCEDURE.

ODQERS on the Common Law. See page 7.

INDERMAUR'S Manual of the Practice of the
Supreme Court of Judicature, in the King\
Bencli and Chancery Divisions, Tenth Edition
Intended for the use of Students and the Profession
By Lharles Thwaites, Solicitor. 495 pages. Prl< (
Xj I net.

fo'ltl'T "'""S™™' "' the book is good, and references are Riv,-,
^Ih r^i"J?r"°"t ,'^°Pi°''"<='erenc« are also given t„,h
rule,, so that the work forms a convenient guide to the iar..,-

^ir^H ■'""'"■•, " 'I ^ "">- ""«»■'"' attempt to d^,

A,.''"^, ■''?"'"*'>' "'"■ "n important and comDlicatd

subject."— So/iWlon' /oiii-nal. compncjtcl

^'V^"^^^'? 9"*""** "* Procedure in an Action in
the Kings Bench Division. With some facsimile
forms. For the Lse of Students. ByA. M.Wilsher,
Barrister -at -Law. Second Edition. 127 page--'
Price 7s. 6d. net. ' '^ ^^ '

Jn'rf%l°/T.'' A ?'"fl?"«'°? ''°t^'' '° Wilsheres Criminal I.a,>
and the student will find sufficient information to enable him l-
Ks^^ "'""'"'"'°" '" ""' subjects dealt with by the t;i..

"The author has made the book clear, interesting, and inst.-u.
tive, and it should be acceptable to students.-SoiWlo^.' Jo^Z,.

WHITE'S PoInU on Chancery Practice. A Lectin e
dehvered to the Solicitors' Managing Clerk-
Association, by Richard White, a IWaster of tl
Supreme Court. 76 pages. Price 3s: 6d. net.

REAL PROPERTY.

WILLIAMS' Principles of the Law of Real Propert,.

Intended as a first book for the use of Students "
Conveyancing. 23rd Edition. By T. Cypr.a.
Williams, Barrister -at -Law. 717 paees Prn ■
£\ los. net. / / f 6 •

"Its value to the student cannot well be over-estimated "-l ,,:■■
Students Journal.

I M ]

Real Property— f on /in lied.

"The modern law of real property is, as he remarks in his con-
cluding summary, a system of great complexity, but under his
careful supervision 'Williams on Real Property' remains one of
the most useful text-books for acquiring a knowledge of it." —
Solicitors' Journal.

WILSHERE*S Analysis of Williams on 7eal Property.

Fourth Edition. 133 pages. Price 7s. 6(1. net.
This book is designed as an assistance to the memory of the
student who has read the parent work. It contains a useful
appendix of questions.

"Read before, with, or after Wllllains, this should proTc of
much service to the slutient. In a short time it is made poss'ble
to him to grasp the outline of this difficult branch of the law."—
Law Magazine.

KELKE'S Epitome of Real Property Law, for the

use of Students. Fifth Edition. By Cuthbert
Spurling, Barrister-at-Law. 243 pages. Price
8s. 6d. net.

" The arrangement is convenient and scientific, and the text
accurate. U contains just what the diligent student or ordinary
practitioner should carry in his head, and must be very useful for
those about to go in for a law examination." — Law Times.

OOODEVE'S Modern Law of Real Property. Fifth
Edition. Bv Sir Howard Warburton Elphinstone,
Bart., and F. T. Maw, both of Lincoln's Inn, Barris-
ters-at-Law. 463 pages. Price 21s.

" No better book on the principles of the law relating to real
property could well be placed in a student's hands after the first
elements relating to the subject have been mastered."— i-au»
Students' Journal.

EDWARDS' Compendium of the Law of Property in
Land. For the use of Students and the Profe jion.
By W. D. Edwards, Barrister-at-Law. Fifth
' Edition. 482 pages. Price 25s. net.

" Mr. Edwards' treatise on the Law of Real Property is marked
by excellency of arrangement and conciseness of statement." —
Solicitors' Journal.

"So excellent is the arrangement that we know of no better
compendium upon the subject of which it treats." — Law Times.

[ 27 ]

RECEIVERS.

KERR on the Law and Practice as to Receivers
appointed by tlie HIarli Court of Justice or Out of
Court. Seventh Edition. 410 pages. Price £1 is
net.

"What strikes one most on reading the book is the excellen;
combination of clearness of expression and conciseness." — Lai.
Journal

ROMAN LAW.

KELKE'S Primer of Roman Ljiw. 152 pages. Price
5s. net.

" In this book the author confines himself mainly to the system
of Justinian's Institutes, and as a student's ^ide to that text-book
it should be very useful. The summary is very well done, the
arrangement is excellent, and there is a very useful Appendix of
Latin words and phrases." — Law Journal.

CAMPBELL'5 Compendium of Roman l^w. Founded
on the Institutes of Justinian ; together with
Examination Questions Set in the University and
Bar Examinations (with Solutions), and Definitions
of Leading Terms in the Words of the Principal
Authorities. Second Edition. By Gordon Campbeli,
of the Inner Temple, M.A., LL.D. 300 pages. Price
I2S. net.

HARRIS'S Institutes of Qaius and Justinian. With

copious References arranged in Parallel Columns,
also Chronological and Analytical Tables, Lists of
Laws, &c., &c. Primarily designed for the use of
Students preparing for Examination at Oxford,
Cambridge, and the Inns of Court. By F. Harris,
B.C.L., M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Third Edition.
223 pages. Price 6s. net.

" This book contains a summary in English of the elements of
Roman Law as contained in the works of Gains and Justini n.
and is so arranged that the reader can at once see what are 'Ut
opinions of either of these two writers on each point. From -iie
very exact and accurate references to titles and sections given lie

[

]

Roman Law— continiieii.

can at one. refer to the original write,,. "y-Xin ™'derit"mos"
which Mr. Harris has arranged his digest '"".'?°''" ^ .7°„
Te ul, not only to the students for whom it was °"8'"" "y *["«^^
but aUo to th»e persons who, though 'h^J- "^X, oJwllTand
wade through the larger treatises °' P'^'f' ^/"f !"• O'™^'^^"?-
others, yet desire to obtain some knowledge of Koman Law.
-Oxjard and Cambridge Undergraduatrs Journal.

JACKSON'S Justinian's Digest, Book 20- «;'* ^"f
English Translation and an Essay on the Law of
Mortgage m the Roman Law. By T. C. Jackson.
B.A.,LL.B.,Barrister-at-Law. 98 pages. ys.M.r^et.

SALKOWSKI'S Institutes and History o. Roman
Private Law. With Catena of lexts By Ur.
Car SalkSwsk,. Professor of Laws, Kon'g^berg.
Translated and Edited by E. E. Whitfield, M.A.
Oxon. 1076 pages. Price £1 12s.net.

HUNTER'S Systematic and Historical Exposition of
Roman Law in the Order ol a Code. »y W. A.
. Hunter, M.A., Barrister-at-Law. Embodying the
Institutes of Gains and the Institutes of Justinian,
translated into English by J. Ashton Cro^s, Bar^
rister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. 1075 pages. Price
£1 i2s. net.

HUNTER'S Introduction to the Study »f Roman
Law and the institutes of Justmian. iNew
Edition By Professor A. F. MuRisoN, Barnster-
at-Law. 222 pages. Price los. net.

"Hunters Introduction has become a student's classic."-
Law jVoffS.

UAHSIA'S Roman Law In . Nutshell. With a
''^selection of questions set at Bar Examinations By

M. Garsia, Barrister-at-Law. 48 pages. P"ce

4s. net.

With this cam book and the small Hunter or Kelke the e.vamina-

tions c.in be passed.

[ 29 ]

SALE OF QOOD8.

WILLIS'S Law of Contract of Sale. Contained in a
Course of Six Lectures delivered by William Willis,
one of His Majesty's Counsel, at' the request of the
Council of Legal Education. Second Edition, with
the text of the Sale of Goods Act. By W. N.
HiBDERT, LL.D. 176 pages. Price los. net.

_ " Those wild .nre familiar with th*- same author s lectures on
Negotiable Securities will find here the same clear grasp of
principles and the same luminous explanation of the law."--
Irish Law Timgs.

"A careful study of these lectures will greatly facilitate tlir
study of tlie Act." Law Nolea.

STATUTES.

MAXWELL on the Interpretation of Statutes. By

Sir Peter Benson Maxwell, late Chief Justice 9f
the Straits Settlements. Sixth Edition. By Wyatt
Paine, Barrister-at-Law. 750 pages. Price £t
net.

'5s

"This is an admirable book, excellent in its method and
arrangement, and clear and Ihorough in its tieatment of the
different questions involved." — Law Magasine.

"The whole book is very readabll as well as instructive." —
Solicitors^ Journal.

CRAIES on Statute Law founded on Hardcastle on
Statutory Law. With Appendices containing Words
and Expressions used in Statutes which have been
judicially and statutably construed, and the Populai
and Short Titles of certain Statutes, and the Inter
pretation Act, 1899. By W. F. Craies, Barri:>^er-at-
Law. Second Edition. 825 pages. Price £1 8s. net

"Both the profession and students will find this work of greaT
assistance as a guide in that difticuh branch of our law, nameb
the construction of Statutes." — Law Times.

[ 30 ]

TORTS.

ODOERS on the Common Law. See page 7.

WILSHERE'S AnalysU of Contracts and Torts.

By A. M. WiLSHEHE and Douglas Rodb, Barristers-
at-La\v. Second Edition. 172 pages. Price 7s. 6d,
net.

It is designed as an assistance to the memory of the Student who
has read Odgers «»r Indt-rniaur un the Conmicn Law.

PRASER*5 Compendium of the Law of Torts.

Specially adapted for the use of Students. By H.
Fraser, liarrister-at'Law, one of tiie Readers to the
Inns of Court. Tenth Edition. 258 pages. Price
I2S. 6d. net.

'* It is a model book for students — clear, succinct, and trustworthy,
and showing a practical knowledge uf their needs." —Z.au> Journal.

RINGWOOD'S Outlines of the Law of Torts. Pre-
scribed as a Text-book by the Incorporated Law
Society of Ireland Fifth Edition. [In the press.

" We have always had a gieat liking for this work, and are very
pleased to see by the appearance of " "w Edition that it is
appfriated by students. We conside. lat for the ordinary
student who wants to take up a separate work on Torts, this is
the best book he can read, for it is clear and explanatory, and has
good illustrative cases, and it is all contained in a very modest
compass. . . . This Edition appears to have been thoroughly
revised, and is, we think, in many resf)ects improved." — Law
Students' Journal.

" The work is one we well recommend to law students, and the
able way in which it is written reflects much coedit upon the
author." — Law Times.

SALMOND'S l-aw of Torts. A Treatise on the-English
Law of Liability for Civil Injuries. By Sir John \V.
Salmond. Fifth Edition. 568 pages. £1 los. net.

" It would be ditlicult to fmd any bo*>k on the subject of Torts
in which the principles are more clearly and accurately expressed
or the case law more usefully referred t<)." — Solicitors' Jotirnal.

[ 81 J

TRUSTEES.

The Truitee'* Handbook. Containing his Powers,
Duties and Liabilities, the Investment of Trust
Funds, and the Powers of a Tenant for I,if«.
Reprinted from Snell's Equity, Williams' Real
Property, etc. 69 pages. Price 3s. 6d. net.

WILLS.

STr<AHAN'S Law of Wills. By J. A. Strahan,
Barrister-at-Law. 167 pages. Price 7s. 6d. net.

" We do not know of anything more useful in its wav to a
student, and it is a hook not to be despi«d by the practitinner."
— Law Magaxine. 1

MATHEWS' Guide to Law of Wills. By A. G.

Mathews, Barrister-at-Law. 402 pages. Price
7s. 6d. net.

" Mr. Mathews has produced an excellent and handy volume on
a subject bristling with difficulties. . . . There is a scope for a
short work of this kind on this subject, and doubtless Mr. Mathews'
book will find its way into the hands of many Law Students."—
Juridical Review.

I, England, by The Eastern Press. Lid.

List

ife.
eal

IN,

t.